Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

#{{IP Question
|Q=I wanted to let you know that I believe [/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Debkotz someone you have indefinitely blocked] is back editing the same article [/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Lmarotz years later under a new name]. But you seem not to take IP comments on your talk page. First, how would you address that problem if I had been able to reach you on your talk page. And second, why not take input from IPs on your talk page? Thanks.
|A=}}

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   Hmm sure but Complex question. What are you interested in? First of all I ALWAYS agree with Opabinia regalis, even if I don't. Of course I think civility is important, of course I appreciate users who do Good Things, of course I think doing Good Things is not carte blanche for getting away with bad behavior. But in this case, as it turns out I WAS ACTUALLY THERE, though it seems like it was much longer ago. So, this shows that OR influenced me to do my job a little better, and I took her thoughts into consideration, modifying my initial lukewarm "accept". She rewarded me afterwards, of course, and I acknowledged that.

   Thank you ;) - exactly what I was interested in. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Alex Shih

2. This is related to 28bytes's question on other candidate pages in which you would probably be expecting soon, about linking to offsite court documents (which is still on the page in question), and a tangentially related note about the topic of vested contributors. What is your stance on longtime editors/administrators that breaks rules without justifiable cause, and have you or will you promote handling such instances without personal bias as a member of the committee if re-elected? Alex Shih ( talk) 23:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Alex, I'm not sure I understand everything you're asking, or whether I should wait for The Other Question to drop. No one should break rules without justifiable cause, of course (I think that's what you're asking), but you'll find (and as an arb yourself no doubt you have found) that everyone has a justifiable cause, though some are not particularly strong. Now in this case, I'm sort of trying to sniff out who you have in mind and what I have to do with them that you'd ask about personal bias. I am not particularly close with anyone in that entire mess, I think--certainly not with Fred Bauder--though I'm on relatively friendly terms with most if not all the admins in the various discussions, including the ArbCom case request. That request, I assume, won't take long--and I'd say "per Opabinia regalis" if that hadn't become emblematic of my decision making process! ;)

4. Is it the role of the committee to serve the community, or is it community's role to serve the committee? This is related to the following comment: ( [1]). My question to you is, do you agree with AGK's rebuttal there? Further, what will you do, if re-elected, to ensure that the committee stays closer connected with the community?

   I understand both sentiments, though if, hypothetically speaking, I were dragged before ArbCom I'd appreciate the support expressed in the "dismiss" comments. But strictly speaking AGK is absolutely right, of course. But that's only one out of four questions. Let's see: it is the role of the committee to serve the community. It is the responsibility of individual editors to think things over carefully before filing a case. Whether that was done here, I'll leave to the judgment of wiser folks. As for your last question, this is a matter we discussed regularly. Prompt responses to emails is imperative, and so is keeping editors posted on progress--but then, ArbCom can't always say in public what it might like to say.

6. Do you agree with Courcelles's answer to my question here ( [2]), 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, what will you do, if re-elected, to ensure this expected level of conduct continues to be maintained on the mailing list?

   I'm not sure what you're looking for me to say here. Arbs, maintain a proper level of decorum! I hope I haven't violated that while I was on ArbCom, and if anyone does I will speak up. But you with your magic glasses can see what some dude keeps saying about my children. You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I use a colloquialism if that ever gets discussed on the list.

8. This is a question slightly related to Banedon's questioning above about "independent thinking". It is no secret that ArbCom occasionally suffers from "herd behaviour" (like the rest of the community) where the lack of leadership leads to the committee being unable to come to an agreement, which is obviously problematic in emergency situations. Do you have any suggestions that would address this concern if re-elected? Alex Shih ( talk) 06:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Eh, I don't want a strong man running anything, and I don't think the community does either. ArbCom is part of a sometimes slow process, but democracy is always a messy business. I am not, however, aware of real emergencies that ArbCom missed out on because of a lack of leadership or something like that.

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) 09:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

1. 1. It seems to me that the "principles and spirit" are those of the democratic ideals that underlie our beautiful project. 2. During my tenure we didn't have that many cases, and I never drafted one though I think I've been pretty involved with all of them. Yes, detailed rationales are a good thing. I'm not sure what you mean with conflicting evidence. There's always going to be conflicting evidence since, at heart, almost all ArbCom cases boil down to either good-faith editors running into each other or a good-faith editor running into policy; bad-faith editors are typically dealt with much earlier. Conflicting evidence? "Editor X is of good faith but this or that conviction of theirs has become untenable," essentially, and the problem isn't so much explaining the conflict but balancing the evidence. 3. I don't want to talk about compliance since that makes me think of SACS and I try to avoid them like the plague, but in general I think drafters have done a pretty good job, yes.

3. 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

   That's a lot of questions. 1. "derogatory gender-related comments" is not acceptable, inside a case, outside a case, or on the margins of a case. I don't see how "derogatory gender-related comments" could legitimately be used to make a "reasonable allegation in 'good faith'". 2. If evidence is misrepresented we are well past incivility--I don't rightly understand why we'd be focusing on CIVIL and NPA when misrepresentation is fraud, which is much worse. 3. If an arb makes an uncivil remark, they should be treated just as a non-arb who makes an uncivil remark.

5. 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

   I'm not sure that that would require more evidence than, say, a pattern of POV editing or misuse of sources, and ArbCom has handled those cases, with varying degrees of success. They all require a body of evidence--look at the Magioladitis case, for instance.

Question from Banedon

2. Apologies for the following awkward question. My impression of you in Arbcom the last time was that you seemed to "go with the flow"; it was other arbitrators making decisions and you would simply support them. Your answer to Gerda Arendt above, saying that you always agree with OR, is symptomatic. Do you have any examples of times when you demonstrated independent thinking? For example, a time when you disagreed (and continue to disagree) with the other arbitrators, or a time when you were the first one to write an opinion?

   Oh, not awkward at all. I think first of all I'm pleased to have worked with people so eminently reasonable that they usually agreed with me. Second, as I indicated elsewhere, much of the work is the day-to-day affairs, where I like to think I was sometimes pretty quick to answer emails and propose or make decisions. And there are two specific things that I wanted to get done last time and I did get them done--meaning, twice I managed to convince the committee to do something, something good, in relation to specific editors.

   Now, I don't know if I was ever the first (or the last?) to write an opinion--I assume what you mean is whether to accept a case or not, since that's about the only time that you see us out of committee, so to speak, and speaking off the cuff. I am sure someone will be able to find examples that prove or disprove your statement, but I'm not so driven to do that. Obviously the proposed decisions you see in cases are written in committee, and typically they are written up by the friendliest and most knowledgeable person, the procedural experts. By the time they get published for us to vote on we've already talked them to death, and the positions are usually fixed.

2. You write in your answer to the previous question that "And there are two specific things that I wanted to get done last time and I did get them done--meaning, twice I managed to convince the committee to do something, something good, in relation to specific editors." Can you give any details about these two things?

   I can but I won't, sorry, for various reasons, none of them being my usual modesty: I do not want to attract Barbara Streisand to this discussion.

Question from Liz

2. Hello, Drmies. 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!} 01:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Good question, Liz. I think one misconception, found among some editors, is that we're partisan hacks, when politics really never come into play. Another is--well, I don't know if it's a misconception, but I had no idea there would be so much email, and so much procedure. My former colleagues know I'm not the best on procedure. What maybe they should know is that ArbCom members, at least in my experience, truly have the best intentions for the project in mind--and that the best ArbCom members are also regularly editors. What regular editors probably don't know (functionaries and OTRS members probably know this) is how bad it can get in terms of harassment and doxxing.

   There are two things I'd like for ArbCom, and both are really useless pipe dreams. I would like the mechanics of the operation to run smoothly and flawlessly--I wasted way too much time even getting access to the email archives, and there were other very bothersome hoops which for non-techies are just very difficult. That's for the WMF to help with, I imagine; I have the feeling they've left too much of that to committee over the years. Second, I'd like some openness to our discussions, but when I was on the committee, every time I thought about openness we got some case that showed the importance of us working behind closed doors.

   One more thing. You know Gerda asked me, above, about that one statement--which was made halfway through a discussion on whether to accept some case or not. It was practically accpeted, then Opabinia came along and swung the court, so to speak, in a very public forum, and the case was declined. I thought that was great, that we could, for the while, speak relatively freely in a back and forth and convince each other, in a format I like so much better than email lists.

Question from Fram

2. You claim " there are two specific things that I wanted to get done last time and I did get them done--meaning, twice I managed to convince the committee to do something, something good, in relation to specific editors.", but refuse to provide any evidence or indication of what this was, making it a very unhelpful boast. The only thing I know of where you took the lead and convinced others at ArbCom of your position, is the unbanning of User:Guido den Broeder, which was the exact opposite of "something good", it was something awful (the original idea, the handling of it, and the outcome), but (to your credit) at least you had the guts to admit your role in it, contrary to most sittin arbs who refused to publicly declare their position on this unban fiasco. Can you please confirm or deny that the unban of Guido Den Broeder was one of the "good" things you instigated?

   Hell no. Guido was one of those editors where ROPE seemed to be an acceptable rationale. Fun fact: Guido was one of the first editors I ever had a conflict with; somehow or other Basic income in the Netherlands resulted from it. He's one of those people that can draw the blood out from under your nails, as the Dutch might say. No, I did not run point on this--Guido emailed the committee, and I was the second arb to comment on his request, proposing we let him back with a topic ban. I'll betray one confidence: no one on the committee objected, but I did say "Let's see how long he lasts..." in that thread. He didn't last long. I understand there's a bit of bad blood and old animosity between the two of you. If you're wondering why I said "Good to see you again, Guido. Het allerbeste" on his talk page--I had hopes he'd be a productive editor within the confines of his topic ban, and if he comes to my house I'll still offer him coffee, like I do for everyone (Fram, you'd be surprised to know, perhaps, how unusual that is in America).

   As for my boast--æghwæþres sceal / scearp scyldwiga gescad witan, / worda ond worca, se þe wel þenceð, and that's about all I have to say on that on-wiki.

4. There is an account, User:Dr Aaij, who claims to be you, and has followed you to some pages, even responding to you (like here). Obviously, since this account is not mentioned on your user page, and it doesn't fit the description of your alternative accounts in your candidate statement, it has to be an impersonator, otherwise you would have failed to follow policy ( WP:ALTACC and deceived the voters. If this somehow isn't an impersonator, when do you plan to withdraw your candidature? Fram ( talk) 21:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Fram, you know damn well it's me ("I have an account I use for teaching Wikipedia classes"), and if this hadn't been a public act of politicking (you could have asked me privately first), you might realize that I didn't "declare" that one account from this account because I don't want to invite the harassment that I receive here to be exported to my students. As an admin and a former arb, I suppose I asked to be harassed; my students haven't. You're the second one to bring this up here, and so I guess I will retire Dr Aaij after the semester is over. Why don't you ping WhenDatHotlineBling while you're at it-- here's a recent account.

6. Then don't use that account to do regular editing mixed with your standard account. I wasn't aware that approving regular DYKs (having nothing to do with your class) or voting in AfD's (again having nothing to do with your class) is accepted for accounts you use "for teaching Wikipedia classes" and which you apparently set up "not to invite harassment". If you don't want an undeclared (at your main account) sock to get into the trouble your regular account gets (or so you claim), then don't use it for regular editing in support of people you support as Drmies as well, or to edit articles you created (which you did repeatedly). You did a very poor job keeping these two separate, making it effectively an undeclared sock you use for regular editing. That I'm the second one to bring this up here only shows how ineffective you are in keeping it a secret. Not a surprise, seeing how effective you were in unbanning a known delirious sockmaster (Redacted), but don't let such things stop you from running for ArbCom and being outraged at people publicly declaring your secrets after you first rubbed it into their noses. Why should anyone vote for an ArbCom candidate who is not trustworthy and not good at defending enwiki against even the most blatant disruptive editors? Fram ( talk) 05:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I am sure you saw, but didn't include, that the DYK review was to do a QPQ for a DYK nomination, because a student had written an article but not nominated it on time. I disclosed I was a DYK reviewer at the AfD, so the closing admin could decide how they might weight my "keep" vote. If the voters here think that my attempt (sanctioned by ArbCom, before I joined that club) to draw a semi-permeable barrier between two accounts is a violation, that's fine. That I can't count on your vote is fine too, as are your obvious sour grapes over that AfD. (Redacted)

8. Earlier today, you indef blocked User:Nevergonnagiveyouup69 as "Username violation, hard block" one minute after the user was created, and without that editor having made any edits apparently. What's so terribly bad about a song plus year combination that it needs an immediate, no explanation given indef hard block? Fram ( talk) 10:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   The combination of rickrolling and 69 (sex position) should be enough, given Template:Uw-uhblock: "...suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia".

@ Fram: this page is for questions for the candidates, in this case for Drmies. Comments on the candidates go on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Discussion. I have moved your further commentary here to that page, along with Drmies's brief response. It was not a question, and the question mark does not make it so. Please don't revert. To me, personally, it's an inappropriate attack which would be better blanked, considering this is supposed to be a collegial process, but out of respect, I've moved it instead. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC). reply

Question from Shrike

2. There are currently ongoing ARCA could you state your opinion about the issue [ [3]].

   If I weren't pressed for time right now I'd say something like "The ruling is a pain in the arse, difficult to parse (as in KI's first example above where it confused the hell out of me, and I'm not a stupid person, honest), and just needs binning in favour of something that's easy to work out." Of course I'd never use the word "arse", if only because the "arse/parse" rhyme is uncouth. ... OMG I'm in agreement with Sandstein--again??? So yeah, I do have an opinion: this is clearly something that needs to be worked out, preferably before the new committee is sworn in.

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?

   I hadn't noticed that I hadn't participated. Should I have? Was I notified? ( David Tornheim, this block's for you.)

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

   I saw Malik say "fuck no", but as you may know I try to maintain a high level of decorum, so I wouldn't have said that. I'm reading over the discussion, or some of it. It's funny: on this very page I'm accused of being a middle-of-the-road, sheepish follower of others, and here I'm looking at Mz7's close, and I'm thinking, yeah, exactly. I am clearly not a unique individual, but rather just another piece of milquetoast. (I don't know if you can see my logs, BTW--plenty of the almost 13,000 blocks I placed are for various "uncivil" remarks, though I don't recall blocking someone for saying "fuck off".)

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

   Is it ever OK to speak in anger? Come on, these are loaded questions. Of course it's not OK, and of course some of us, including me, do it.

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?

    Hmm I'd advocate premarital sex before I'd advise anyone to engage in 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?

    I'm sorry but the sky is indeed blue. What are you looking for? Cussing others out isn't OK, I think we all agree with that. Making unfounded accusations isn't OK. Making irrelevant personal comments isn't OK. But there are contexts in which "anti-vaxxer" is a statement of fact, it seems to me, and if someone has that userbox, a diff isn't really necessary. And then there are words that are never OK. But given the outcome of the RfC you pointed at earlier, it's not likely that this will be a matter before ArbCom--though I sure hope I didn't just jinx that into being.

14. 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.

    Good for Brittanica, I suppose? We have a great number of editors working in the area of medicine and pseudo-medicine, and I have faith in community consensus. But that's a general statement--I have no knowledge of that particular article (or acupuncture itself), but I promise you I will read up on it if it a. comes before ArbCom and b. I'm on ArbCom at that time.

16. 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?

    I am trying to figure out the grammar. Are you asking whether someone's website is a more reliable source than the NEJM? In principle, that's not likely. But I don't understand what you mean with "primary source" here. A description of some practice as "pseudoscience" is, in heavily edited articles with much interest inside and outside Wikipedia, likely to be a result of community consensus on which right now I have no other opinion than to assume good faith.

18. Consider a controversial topic where two polarized groups of editors have strongly differing opinions on content, and one group regularly takes members of the other group to WP:AN/I to have them topic banned or indefinitely blocked—-not because of behavior that actually violates policy—-but primarily because the accusing group prefers not to deal with the " disruption" of editors who disagree with them on content. If members of the accusing group have sufficient control and influence at AN/I (from AN/I regulars, including both commentators and sympathetic admins), then that group can systematically eliminate all editors of the opposing group who disagree with them.

    Do you believe this is going on? If so, does it serve our core policy of WP:NPOV that only editors from one side of a controversy are permitted to edit the topic? If it is going on, and the dispute comes to ArbCom, how would you handle it—-especially if ArbCom does not address content?

    I've seen such groups, and I've seen that come before the court of popular opinion at ANI, but I have no seen evidence that such groups or editors get banned or blocked without having violated policy. In other words, I have no reason to assume that your scenario has actually played out in real life. No, NPOV is not served by having only editors from one side of a controversy, but I do not believe that is a real problem on Wikipedia. Finally, if, as I think your scenario suggests, group A has managed to eliminate, by hook and by crook, all members of group B, the community, including ArbCom, can investigate the behavior of the members of group A and deal with them. If, as you suggest, they got rid of the others by shady, shift, or shitty means, then obviously that's a matter that needs handling.

20. It is often asserted that ArbCom cannot rule on content. I assume that means it will not decide specifically what should be in an article.  But what if part of a dispute has to do with allegations that an editor(s) is lying about content in a source(s), using contradictory or double-standards as to what qualifies as WP:RS in the topic area,  preferring inferior sources over superior sources, preferring outdated sources to current sources, dismissing high quality sources that articulate views the editor(s) does not want in the article, and other behavior that create bias in an article in violation of WP:NPOV. Do you believe ArbCom could handle such an issue? How about this case?  Would you as an Arb be willing to look at a source’s content to verify whether an editor was or was not lying or misrepresenting the source's content? In sum, would you be willing to see if there are some serious sourcing issues?

    These are the kinds of things that are presented in the workshop. I believe that your "in sum" is really a non sequitur; from the confirmation that ArbCom can judge misrepresentation it does not follow that I, or we, are going to judge sourcing issues in article space.

Questions from Collect

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

   No.

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?

   That depends, though it's possibly not a good sign--then again, if an arb is also an admin, and as an admin has warned a user for BLP violations, for instance, does that mean that the admin/arb can no longer judge the user fairly in an arbitration case? I don't think so.

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"?

   Hmm why do I feel this is a loaded question? Sorry Collect, I'm not going to post-judge that case.

Question from Atsme

2. Under what conditions are you willing to recuse yourself from an arb case, particularly one involving an editor (either filer or filed against) that you have either previously shown ill-will toward, perceived or otherwise?

   Good question, esp. considering the "perceived" part. I cannot control others' perceptions of me, nor do I bear any one of our editors ill will.

   I have faith in mankind, and have rarely suggested to others they need to recuse since I believe that most admins/arbs/etc. here put Wikipedia above personal matters. I'm trying to think of any one editor whom I think I could not assess fairly, and I can only come up with one or two, at the most. [time passes: No, the ones I'm thinking of, I think I can put personal feelings aside, even with them.] I was looking back over a bunch old business last night and ran into some thing where I told my fellow arbs (I think it was on the arb mailing list) that I'd be happy to recuse if they wanted me to, but no one suggested I should. But without getting into too much detail, I will tell you that I have vehemently argued on the arb list for one specific editor with whom I had nothing but conflict on-wiki, an editor who I am sure hated me as much as they thought I hated them--and in that case one might even have argued I was INVOLVED since we had had content-related interactions. Yet I advocated for them, indeed started the process of a return to Wikipedia.

   But that's not really what you were asking. I suppose I'd seriously consider recusing if relatively independent colleagues believe I should. Does that make sense?

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Yes, it makes sense, but all any of us can do at this point is AGF and hope the candidates we intend to support say what they mean but don't say it mean. I predict consensus after this election will be that 100% of editors will think 50% of editors have lost their minds, including arb candidates. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧}

• If only 50% of them think I lost my mind, I'll call that a win. Thanks Atsme. Drmies ( talk) 03:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from SashiRolls

2. Hi Drmies. You said above you were expecting an Other Question, perhaps this short series would be helpful. You were involved with the Cirt/Sagecandor case during your tenure on ArbCom (I corresponded with you both via the ArbCom listserve and on meta while blocked). You followed Sagecandor's edits quite closely § (much closer than you had followed Cirt's §). Despite your (in my view, valid) concerns with their editing, you did not chose to use your big block button. Instead you made strong, snarky comments not dissimilar to those I was blocked for making. I thank you for suggesting an end to my now-defined 500-day block, concerning the Trumpliography matter. Dozens of people have mentioned the lessons I must draw from that episode (e.g. stick to literature §). tldr: Are there any lessons for en.wp -- and specifically for ArbCom -- to draw from my 500-day block appeal, in your opinion?

   Meh I'm not "following" either one. I've worked with Cirt, but that was a long time ago; both of them edited a bunch of American politics pages where I've dabbled as well. Oh, Sagecandor--yeah, on the talk page for Christine Blasey Ford, and that Mark Judge dude, but I'm not aware that I interacted very much with them directly, except maybe over that resume stuff. Anyway, yeah, I have concerns, but that's it, nor have I used my Big Button on you. And you didn't get blocked for just that one comment, I'm sure... Anyway, I'm glad you're back, and my advice is typically not worth much, but I think you know, and I wish others knew this better, that hounding is held in very low regard, even the appearance of hounding, and that's given as a reason in your block log as well. If I had been blocking you I don't think I would have put NOTHERE in there, by the way.

4. Do you think that it is a positive sign that -- with one exception until very recently -- only former Arbs have chosen to step forward for this election?

   No, I don't, but I don't know what to think about that. I've tried to recruit a few folks, but only K-stick took the bait. One admin had a lousy excuse about having a real life and a business and a family, and another said they'd needed to know more about ArbCom and past cases and all that. I can think of a dozen or more people I'd gladly see run for this position, but you gotta admit, there's very little about it that's attractive. And let me add that I think there are no female editors running for this set of arbs.

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) 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Hey Tim--thanks for the questions. I think you know I pay little attention to those sites and look at them only when I have to--like, when I got some email saying "hey look you're famous". (Plus, holy moly, I don't need more rabbit holes in my life...and I can never remember all the names and aliases.) I never look at Reddit (on principle), I don't know about Genderdesk--and Wikipedia Review, there's a mark 2? That's the thing you write for, right, and Jayen466? I don't want to go searching now, but Wikipediocracy is the forum-board looking site, and WR looks like a sort of newspaper? I know some of and respect Jayen's work, and I remember seeing a story or two I thought was valuable--but it's been a few years. So if I'm thinking of the right website, WR, I think that's very valuable. The forum, that's mostly banned people cussing at non-banned people, but I have hardly scratched the surface of that site. In general nothing is without redemption as long as there are people of good faith: I know you and Jayen are of good faith. But, again, I just don't read them enough to say much more than that. But anytime you want me to read something that will teach me a thing or two, let me know plz.

   Carrite, a little birdie told me that Wikipediocracy has a thread about my supposedly having sex with a student. If that's true, perhaps you might rephrase "venue for criticism", since that can't be called "criticism". Drmies ( talk) 17:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't say that "thread about..." is an accurate phrasing. There are threads about you on two or three message boards, as there are about me on one or two... Carrite ( talk) 19:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The thread title you seek is "Drmies concealed accounts allowed ?" in the closed area of the board (registration required to see, no Google). I think certainly the thread originated on a reasonable, critical basis. Carrite ( talk) 19:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Do they have a policy where slander is removed and scrubbed? No, I don't "seek" a thread; I now have even less interest in that website. If they can't keep that kind of stuff out, it's just trash. On Wikipedia, we have policies for that, and I like to think we follow through on them. If you have anything to do with that website, and if you are actually concerned with real people, I trust you'll take appropriate action.

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) 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Unfortunately I can't say much about this because I don't know much about this. I can think of a few editors who, well, you know, got banned for pretty serious reasons, but do not remember exactly how they were banned, whether that came from San Francisco or not, except for maybe in one or two cases. So I also can't take your "gradually disposing..." as fact, nor do I know that this is a growing trend. What I can tell you is that the WMF/Legal has been active trying to get redress one way or another for harassment, and I fully support that--but the one or two cases that I am aware of were started or prompted by ArbCom and functionaries, and were pursued in ways that ArbCom could never bring to bear. However, in general, sure, I don't think that the WMF should ban for the things that ArbCom typically decides on. At the same time, if we're talking about serious harassment cases, stalking, doxxing, ArbCom quickly runs out of power, resources, legal standing, etc. There is no way, I think, that the community or ArbCom can deal with the refdesk troll, for instance.

Thank you for your answers. Carrite ( talk) 06:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Peacemaker67

2. Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution or dramaboard action that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?

   I don't think I subscribe to the premise, that there wasn't enough done beforehand. I think that presented with the evidence in the case request the committee made the right decision. I'm no expert on that case, but I am very much inclined to agree with Worm, who showed initial hesitation and then accepted, saying "I'm satisfied that there are longstanding problems" that ArbCom should try to tackle. And look at the results. One editor was banned for harassment (though they might have been community-banned on AN/I as well), another was topic-banned; this required significant amounts of evidence, and ArbCom is probably the best venue for such a wide-ranging examination of editors' behavior.

Questions from Beyond My Ken

2. Drmies: It would be very nice to have the only rational editor on Wikipedia back in the ArbCom saddle again. Some of the questions that have been posed to you have seemed somewhat problematic and argumentative, so I wanted to turn to something more relevant. It's a two-part question, so please bear with me.
   (1) If a team has 4th down and 2 to go on the 20 yard line late in the 4th quarter, and they're down by 6 points, do they kick and take the almost certain 3 points, risking that they won't have a chance to score again, or do they go for it and risk turning the ball over?
   (2) How would you make ArbCom more responsive to making decisions in such a situation, considering that a choice must be made expeditiously – even granted the possible use of a time out – and cannot be tied up in bureaucratic knots?

   1. You go for it, and if you have Tua as a QB, you win. Like here, with Celine Dion thrown in gratuitously. Then again, if you have that defense that kept LSU on their own half for most of that other National Championship game, you can do whatever you like. BTW I'm surprised no one has yet faulted me for butchering your words into a marvelous compliment. 2. ArbCom works really well if you have at least a couple of people who are ready to jump on things. I see that GorillaWarfare is running: she, and Opabinia, were among the most active arbs when I was on the committee, picking up a ball quickly and not dropping it. Our times out are sometimes cop outs, sometimes necessarily so, since some decisions (I'm talking about the ones you guys never see, decisions made on the mailing lists about non-public matters) just take time, and consist of emails saying "we're discussing this". But yeah, I remember more than once asking "hey, what about this thing from last week", and others did that too--sometimes committee think happens, when you think someone else is taking care of something, and they think the same thing. I remember us discussing those problems, but organizationally that's not easy to do. But if there's anything I can promise you, it's that I will do my best to respond quickly and to stay on top of the things I pick up. OK I'm mixing way too many metaphors. Also, ArbCom is not a football game. I think, though, that generally speaking the committee I served with did a pretty good job with those emailed requests, and I aim to do that again.

4. Was Wikipedia created to have a place where people can have civil discussions with each other, or was it created in order to make an online encyclopedia which presents good, accurate information for the public? In other words, which is more important, being civil at all times, or improving the encyclopedia at all times?
   And yes, that is a rhetorical question, although you can certainly answer if you would like to. I'm just a bit annoyed that some people – specifically a currently defrocked admin – seem to think that civility is the be-all-and-end-all of Wikipedia, and that a lack of civility is somehow our paramount problem -- 'cause it ain't, not by a long shot. Much more dangerous to us are POV, racist, sexist, ethnic and nationalistic editing, hoaxes, undetected vandalism, citing sources that don't support the information added -- anything the compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia -- and yet no one seems to be asking questions of ArbCom candidates about what we can do to minimize those very important problems, everyone wants to know how we can suppress people from saying "Fuck you" to each other.

   Tell you what, BMK, since we're sort of chatting off the record, I'm a bit embarrassed at the list of my "fuck you"s; if you add it all up it seems pretty bad and I'm not so proud of them. On the other hand, some of us deal with extraordinarily disgusting stuff, about our families and what not, and if someone comes here only to tell me *******, with my name and address in the edit summary, yeah I want them to fuck off, but more so, I want the WMF to support us and try to do something about it. Of course civility is important, but I also am much more concerned with the kinds of editing that you point at than with civility because a. I think our civility problem isn't as bad as some may say and b. we should be concerned with our "product"--our goal is to produce good and neutral articles.

Thanks for the responses. Your "embarrassment" does you credit. We all should be embarrassed when we occasionally act badly. In the old days, before such expressions were widely disparaged, I was described as having an "Irish temper", i.e. quick to trigger, it hangs in for a while and then dissipates rapidly, leaving behind embarrassment and regret. I don't know if that's typically "Irish" behavior or not (and despite my patronym I'm only actually about 1/8th Irish or less), but it certainly describes me well, and it has led to some unnecessary confrontations on-Wiki. Some I continue to regret, others not so much, but I do think it illustrates just a bit why the current emphasis on Wiki-civility is a false concern when compared to other, more important issues -- we are all human, each with a bundle of human foibles, and we all must accept that in each other to a certain extent. In the end, it's not lack of civility that might topple Wikipedia, it's the possibility that public no longer trusts the information we provide. If that happens, we're sunk.

</soapbox> Beyond My Ken ( talk) 10:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from power~enwiki

2. Civility seems to be a theme of this election. Do you feel that "templating the regulars" (such as with {{ uw-3rr}}) is something that should be discouraged as uncivil, or accepted as a procedural requirement? And do you feel that the Arbitration Committee should help determine matters of that sort? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Hmm I just don't think that ArbCom should want to think they can somehow "take care" of such matters. That's really for the community to decide. And let's not forget that the community has significant influence on what ArbCom does, in the Workshop phase for instance. I wasn't very involved with the recent MILHIST case, but one of the comments I read is that the case might have been more effective--I'm not sure how the commentator defined that--if there had been more input in the Workshop from non-MILHIST editors. No, "templating the regulars" shouldn't be made illegal or whatever, and it already is discouraged. Sometimes regulars need to be templated; they're not that special, haha. It's so easy to be snarky here, especially when you can do so via a Twinkle-assisted template, but I think most editors successfully resist that urge. Mind you, the 3R template also serves a formal purpose, just like an NPA-4 warning: "I told you this might happen". Still, I see them more as a reminder than as a formal requirement. But not all templates are the same, of course--so no, I don't want more rules there. But I'm saying this as a regular editor/admin, who wants a limited ArbCom. God, do I sound like a Libertarian??

4. Do you feel that Kick Six is the correct WP:COMMONNAME for the article on the 78th Iron Bowl? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I have no idea what you're talking about. I vaguely remember a football game that ruined an otherwise perfectly good family trip.

Question from Rschen7754

2. An editor who frequently leaves pleasantries on your talk page is a major party to an ArbCom case. What do you do? -- Rs chen 7754 06:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Ha. Return the pleasantry, because that's the polite thing to do. Are coffee and cake involved? Let me get back to this after coffee and cake. [Cinnamon swirl crumb cake is eaten...] You know, it depends. If it's more than just pleasantries, and I consider us to be friends, I should stay out. If we're not, and the pleasantries are purely formal/polite/superficial (from my point of view), then I don't see a problem being on the case merely because pleasantries were exchanged. We should all leave each other pleasantries, as a matter of course.

   More, because credit where credit's due: you asked a similar question of GorillaWarfare, and she answered snarklessly and cogently, "I recuse if I have had significant conflict with an editor, if I am friends with an editor, if I am named in the case somehow, or if I doubt my ability to remain neutral on a decision". That is a very good answer. Of course, it remains to be seen whether "pleasantries" lead to or imply friendship... What does "friend" mean? I have met GorillaWarfare in real life. I have worked with her, in article space and on ArbCom. I have the highest respect for her. I couldn't imagine sitting in judgment of her.

Questions from Pudeo

2. In recent months, you have told editors to "fuck off" in your block review edit summaries [4] [5] [6] [7] There was also a civility complaint against you at ANI in August, in which the initiator criticized several edit summaries which he considered to be rude. Would you be committed to civility in the ArbCom proceedings when communicating with users who you consider to be problematic?

   I'm not aware I told editors to fuck off: those aren't "editors" by any stretch of the imagination. If you took the time to dig around and find those diffs, you can easily find out who we're dealing with. I should never say it in the first place, but I'm a very fallible human being, and I am well aware of that.

   I've been on ArbCom before; I have not heard of any complaints, either from ArbCom customers or from my colleagues, about my supposed incivility.

4. In a July 2018 AE thread you were asked to recuse by two users and one administrator because you had commented on the talk page that led to the filing, but you did not do so. How easily would you be willing to recuse yourself in ArbCom cases?

   Hmm I thought I made some reasonable comments there, toward both sides, fair and balanced. Kingsindian didn't link to any diffs or ping me, so I don't know if my comments to that talk page (which is huge, of course) have any relation to this specific conflict, or if my interaction with the editor had anything to do with the request. If admins and arbs would have to recuse from a topic where they edited a talk page, or from a case where they had ever interacted with an editor, we couldn't have arbs or admins who also edit content and interact with editors. But that aside, both Kingsindian and Zero commented after my last comment and didn't ping me. I suppose I'd have moved my comment if I had known--but since my supposed "conflict" was with Rusf10, and my mild criticism was against BullRangifer, and the request closed with a warning against BullRangifer, and I wasn't pinged, there's not a lot of there there.

6. Last week you told on your talkpage that you can't run for ArbCom because you have too many obligations. What made you change your mind and do you really have time to participate in complex cases in a fair way?

   I was trying to let Softlavender down lightly, but there really wasn't a big slate of candidates last week, and so I figured I'd make time. If I really can't participate in something because it's too complex and time-consuming, I'll bow out beforehand.

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?

   Besides skills and knowledge, CU and OS require judgment, of various kinds. For CU, for instance, we want someone to properly assess the difference between a fishing expedition and a legitimate investigation; to do so you want an editor with considerable experience in dealing with editors and their edits, with content. In SPIs, as you know very well, we frequently look for patterns and idiosyncrasies, so you want to have some faith that an editor can find those--in my opinion, part of that experience comes from interactions with editors in article space. Plus, checkusers need to be extra careful since CU is a serious invasion of privacy. Trust is not a technical matter. For OS, a different kind of judgment is required, mostly pertaining to BLP matters of course, but I am more wary about CU than about OS, also since OS to some extent is revdeletion with extra scrubbing power. CU is altogether a different tool.

Question from Feminist

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

   Shoot if I knew that... It's not really a matter for ArbCom, of course, though occasionally we also get written up by the press--I can't find it now, but I believe that one of the big US papers wrote on GamerGate, maybe the Gamaliel case, explaining some of the processes including ArbCom, and that time they got it right. But that's really a matter for the WMF, not for me or even for us. I do what I can within my own little world, but it's a little world.

Thank you for your answer. feminist ( talk) 10:06, 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?

   First of all, if a problem hasn't been solved, it's likely someone else's fault. Ha.

   Well, a siteban is a strong variety of NOTHERE. I think a topic ban should be applied when the community (the editorial community or the smaller ArbCom community) thinks an editor can be a net positive to the project as long as they stay away from some temptation, some hangup, some forbidden fruit, from the kind of thing that gets them in trouble.

   The gun control case led to topic bans--and the idea is, of course, that said editor can try to stay out of trouble and condition themselves to that kind of trouble-free behavior. In the gun control case there were sourcing problems. Well, one can imagine an editor being forced to work in a different area, where the temptation of using unreliable partisan sources doesn't exist so strongly for them and they can focus on reliability and impartiality, and then export that attitude back after a request to have the topic ban lifted. I think in principle this can work (although it's what Americans would call a very liberal way of thinking, that learning can help improve people's behavior), and that it actually has led to successful rehabilitation (God, that sounds so patronizing--but ArbCom does deal with sometimes intractable problems, and has to play God).

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?

   Isn't that precisely the thing? "Civility" encompasses so many things, and so many of those things are highly gradable? If I come to your house and you don't offer me coffee and cake, I might find you very uncivil--but I know that's my idea of civility, which includes hospitality. And some editors exchange and accept words and phrases in the give and take of debate that others find totally unacceptable. Given that wide range I don't think we'll ever come to some agreement over what is and what isn't civil. In arb cases, I believe it's more fruitful to not talk about "civility" but to be more precise. Editor X will not be allowed to question the decisions of administrators. Editor Y will no longer be allowed to question the motives of opponents. Editor Z will be blocked the next time they knowingly insert an unreliable source. Editor Drmies will be blocked the next time they use the f-word?

6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?

   Do I think people get treated differently based on what hat they wear? Sure--but it's not just the hats, and I think that longtime editors don't need to be admins in order to become "unbannable", as some call it. (I actually don't believe anyone is unbannable.) This was a case about an admin using socks and editing for money--if these facts are established, I wouldn't have any hesitations about a ban.

8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?

   Of course! Because people take them real serious... I don't know, Guerillero. They remind me of the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, which had its purpose even after the RfC/U was closed, and I believe in some cases was used by admins to make calls on editors' behavior. An admin can point at an admonishment and say, "you were warned", and issue a block without having to go through too many hoops. I'm not sure this has happened, since frequently we have these cases about longtime editors, but in principle it can happen. And if I were admonished for something, I think I would take it seriously--so that would be valuable, yes.

Insider Baseball

2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?

   In principle it can. I believe it did in the Magioladitis case and the Gun Control case. I'm glancing over WP:German war effort and it's fun to see how partisan an affair that can be--except for my own comments, of course. Elsewhere I noted that that case was said to have been less efficacious than it could have been because only MILHIST insiders participated in the workshop, and the workshop pages do provide some backup for that lack of participation. I do think that the workshop is important, because arbs are people too. Take Magioladitis: some arbs were much more aware of AWB issues and bot matters than others. In principle, the workshop can be very educational, and after the initial case request it's the best opportunity for community input. I welcome it. Hmm, baseball--did you know that the 1936 exhibition at the Olympics, with A. Hitler in the stands, may have had the highest attendance for any baseball game?

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?

   Yes--it's a request to ArbCom, and I can't pretend to speak for ArbCom until I've spoken with ArbCom.

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.

   Amanda, I'm not going to go through the entirety of the few cases that popped up during my tenure, which the viewer at home can find at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2016 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2017. If you look at them (Gamaliel, TRM and George Ho, Magioladitis, Arthur Rubin, Wikicology) you'll see that we were unanimous or near-unanimous all the time. I'm not sure that in those cases anyone ever really disagreed in the final decisions, and from what I remember the workshops also lacked completely polar opposite views.

6. Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?

   Hmm I read most of them last time, so yeah, I imagine this time won't be much different.

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?

   Yes. I do not have a problem with voting for a desysop if the evidence warrants it, none at all. Now, silence--it depends on the reasonability of the time frame, of course, but silence in a collaborative environment is not a good thing.

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?

    The most interesting one to me is found in the first set of bullet points of the privacy policy: "You may *Read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account. *Register for an account without providing an email address or real name." I can't help but wonder how long we will be able to maintain this, though I may think that also because recently I've seen too much of this (admin eyes only). I have no good answer yet, and it's not a matter for ArbCom, but that's what I find interesting.

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) 05:15, 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) 00:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Yes--and we're well past "may try". Of course such propaganda attempts will be made under the guise of "content", so it's likely to come to ArbCom as the result of a case request, and then it will no different from other kinds of anti-disruption efforts. Right now, much of the hardcore propaganda seems to be relatively underdeveloped and is easily handled by Recent change patrollers and admins (I have the feeling I'm using more revdeletion in the last few years). The more sophisticated stuff is probably mostly dealt with via AP2, and it's up to admins active in AE to help maintain the integrity of the project. But it may well be that we will see more off-site harassment, and ArbCom will have to step up to the plate if editors report this.

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?

   We're not a court of law here. The irony is, and some editors have been caught up in it, that someone who discloses a COI or even that they are a paid editor can have a harder time writing content than undisclosed editors. It is hard for us to figure (barring the introduction of off-wiki evidence, of course, which brings its own set of problems) when someone gets paid or not, and it's more likely someone will get banned for COI editing with the suspicion of paid editing. I'm not sure about your last set of alternatives: admins need to follow Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, of course, but that is a given. A higher standard? No, that is asking too much of volunteers who are also bound by rules about doxxing, for instance, and I think you know that I will always let the latter concerns (privacy) prevail over the former (paid/COI editing).

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?

   I don't know the case, of course--but that a COI is established but doesn't need to be declared sounds a bit odd to me initially, and still sounds odd to you, no doubt. However, that ArbCom didn't explain any further is cruel on your end, but on their end it's understandable. I assume it was one single arb who wrote the email but spoke for the committee or a majority thereof, and who went which way is immaterial. Would you like for me to speculate? We were dealing with a COI editor whose COI could only be disclosed at the risk of outing, but whose COI was judged not to render them irredeemably partial (OK I'm really guessing, starting at "but".

   I understand this (if my speculations aren't too far off base)--we all have some COI. I have it with my employer (and you may too), with my football team (which I annually hope will beat the hell out of my employer), with my professional colleagues, etc. So it goes for many of us, I have no doubt, and it is likely that ArbCom knew things they are not able to share with you about this particular editor. I have no doubt this doesn't sit well with you, and I can't blame you for it, but given OUT (and based on my speculations) that's the way it is--and we elect seasoned editors to make these kinds of decisions.

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?

   Well it seems to describe with some validity the ways in which some editors, while superficially civil, edit Wikipedia to further their own POV. In some ways the essay seems dated, and of course it has already drawn its conclusion: "the arbitration committee's failure to deal with these issues..." which I think is not a true statement. I also think that in the cases that I'm familiar with ArbCom has been responsive to matters brought up in the case request or the workshop, and it isn't ArbCom that had sole control over the agenda.

4. Do you agree with this definition of "hounding", and the additional comment DGG left during ArbCom's !voting on it, 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? (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 agree with DGG's comment. The last part of your first sentence carries an epistemological load that I cannot possibly affirm or deny.

Questions from Winged Blades of Godric

2. Hi, Drmies:-) 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 propagated via the show-of-the-month) was optimal esp. in light of Iri's comment over here? Please elucidate. Thanks!

   Hey WBG--I assume this is the link to the primary sources of a court case from years ago. I thought about that some, but only slightly since a. I figured these would be some of the most-watched pages ever; b. I came to it late and only indirectly; and c. I was (and really still am) not familiar with the circumstances--in other words, to which extent the subject had linked these documents or allowed them, on way or another, to be a matter of public record. I saw, the other day, that one editor claimed "but Bauder, you invited us to Google yourself, including your legal matters", or words to that effect--it takes much more intimate knowledge of what happened nine (?) years ago than I have to make a judgment on it. But I will say that I was surprised to see those links, and even more surprised to find the links available, and then suppressed a week later, and I think it does not set a good model for other editors, admins, future admins, on how to handle such things.

Thank you:-) I esp. concur with the last line. ∯WBG ^converse 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

User:Winged Blades of Godric et al., I finally managed to read through the old email on the functionaries list, in particular a discussion prompted by (and leading to Risker's comment on) Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred_Bauder/Workshop#Asking_for_attention_of_clerks/arbs. That conversation confirmed my somewhat tentative remark here; at least sometimes my intuition is correct. One upshot of all this is that it's a good thing that the "new" suppression tool comes with unsuppression (see that talk page for explanation). Drmies ( talk) 04:22, 22 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.

   You only found some evidence of conflict avoidance??? Ha! OK that's about all I can say right now; I hope I'll have time to read more than the abstract.

Question from Pyxis Solitary

2. The main purpose of ArbCom is dispute resolution. When there is a conflict, it is reasonable to expect the behavior from ArbCom members to not only be calm and neutral, but also not disrespectful in words and actions. Therefore, during a dispute, do you think it is appropriate for an administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee to say to one of the editors in the conflict: "as exaggerated as I think some of your complaints are, [the other editor] still outdoes you in insinuation and pure assholishness"?

   Were you the editor who was suggesting there was a behind-the-scenes conspiracy to go lightly on one specific editor? I will promise that you if I get to be an arb again, and I'm wearing my arb hat (that is, not on my own talk page, for instance), that I will find less vernacular wording.

Is the name of editor not transparent in the linked history? "Conspiracy"? The precise statement: "The reluctance to deal with [one editor's] behavior is creating the impression that there is a behind-the-scenes "hands off" when it comes to him, which boils down to favoritism for one editor over others, and is to the detriment of Wikipedia as a whole."
Finding "less vernacular wording" during a conflict, wherever it may be, should be second nature to anyone who accepts a position of responsibility, because said person's temperament can affect temperature. I would not have even known who you were and you would not have been involved in the above-referenced matter if you had not gone out of your way to flex your authority as an administrator by threatening to block me after an ANI that you did not participate in was closed by another administrator four days prior.
You aspire to sit on a "panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process...[with] authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors." I am an editor. ArbCom requires mediation skills. And based on my experience, you make matters worse. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

You're not here to ask questions, are you. Drmies ( talk) 02:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

On the contrary. I asked a question. About conflict. That the question was inspired by your behavior and the choices you made does not diminish the validity of the question. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from PCHS-NJROTC

2. You say in your candidate statement that you think ArbCom should be a last resort, what about administrative actions? While I congratulate you for not making it a three year block or something silly like that, what would possess you to block a shared IP that has been around since 2006 for six months over two edits (three if you count the one from October)?

   This is fairly common for schools. Questioning that practice is perfectly fine, though I don't think this is the right venue for it.

Question from 28bytes

2. With apologies for the late question (and appreciation that you've already answered a ton of them)... What factors do you think the committee should take into consideration when deciding whether to pursue an allegation that a high-profile editor is actually a reincarnation of a banned (or topic-banned) user? What sort of timeline do you feel would be reasonable for making that decision?

   Hmm I have the feeling this isn't entirely hypothetical, is it... I also have the feeling that a stick was dropped, perhaps, at some point, due to a variety of circumstances. But let me just say that I think such allegations should be taken seriously, the sooner the better.

Question from Tamsier

2. Hi Drmies, Thank you for running and good luck. Over the years, you and I have had some major disagreements and I take full responsibility for my part in those disagreements. Despite all those disagreements, I fully respect you as an experienced and great contributor to this project. Yes, even people who do not/have not got along can still have their differences yet respect one another. That being said, do you still feel that this deletion and redirect back in 2012 was the right move when the nominator had been engaged in antagonisation and hounding for months - coupled with the fact that, the article is notable and was fully sourced, and that no scholar have ever claimed that the Saafi people regard Roog as their God other than Koox? It's like saying the Christian God and the Muslim God (Allah) are the same thing and one should be redirected to the other just because they are both Abrahamic religions. Given the same scenario would you have done anything differently and if yes, what? Thank you.

   Hey Tamsier--nice to see you here; I'm glad you're back. If I had to guess--it's six years ago?--I'd say I was guided by a. the merge discussion and b. a combination of things--the edit warring spree you were on at the time (and you were blocked soon after) and the lack of substantive response in the merge discussion, where some of your comments undermined the argument. As for the nominator, they were never blocked, and I don't know if hounding was ever proved--so I certainly don't want to confirm that part of your statement. Nor do I want to get into the content here: I am much more interested in you getting out of this Serer topic ban, and I hope to see such a request in the near future.

4. Thank you Drmies for your response. Now you've explained it, I can see where you were coming from. I disagree with the decision to delete but I respect the outcome and understand your position. Besides, its been six years and its all water under the bridge. Moving forward, I really hope this nomination is successful, and I really mean that. With your years of experience - not forgetting that you've served at the committee before, I think you will be a great asset there and to this project. Arbcom can be a rather frightening place. I understand that, because they deal with serious cases. However, with your experience and great sense of humour, I think you will be more than able to do the job and give it the seriousness it deserves, yet, at the same time, inject some humour there. One of the questions above insinuated that you are a go with the flow kind of guy. I disagree. I doubt anyone has ever had runnings with the Dr. more than I. In all the years I've dealt with him, I have never known him to be a "follow the leader" kind of guy. I wish you all the best and hope to see your name up there. Good luck! And yes, in the future, if I live long enough, I hope to appeal that ban. However for the time being, I am concentrating on other things.

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?

   Hi Rob. I've heard much talk about "unblockables"--yet I know Eric C. was blocked quite a number of times, and was restricted (by ArbCom, maybe? before my time) from participating in various forums and areas. TRM was blocked, and essentially desysopped, via a case. Magioladitis was desysopped, via a proper case. Wasn't Winkelvi indef-blocked the other day? And remember Ottava Rima? All these were longtime editors/admins, and all got censured one way or another, some by ArbCom, but some without any such help. In other words, I have seen plenty of "draconian" decisions being made, and plenty of them without ArbCom being involved.

   The thing with ArbCom-decided blocks/bans is of course that they are more "draconian" in that repeal (or appeal) is more difficult, and so I'm always a big fan of leaving ArbCom to do the things that involve privacy concerns--basically the stuff that shouldn't be discussed on-wiki. You know there's plenty of that. And it just doesn't strike me as right, or as really a happening thing, that ArbCom is alerted and via some backdoor, some cabalistic way does the things that can't be done on AN/ANI. Let's say that some longtime editor, who has plenty of enemies, somehow crosses some boundaries but no regular block is forthcoming--is ArbCom really supposed to step in and solve that problem without a case request or something like that? Setting aside blocks/bans for privacy/harassment/doxxing/etc. reasons, I can see ArbCom functioning like a bureaucratic entity that can make difficult decisions for which no single person is accountable, but these should be a. exceptions and b. handled properly, on-wiki. Really, I don't subscribe to the whole notion of unblockables, nor do I think that ArbCom is somehow reneging on some duty by not blocking/banning those deemed undesirable by some.

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?

   If, and that's a big if, all these things are true, I'd think that the "new editor" might not yet be well acquainted with how Wikipedia works. I'd sit down with em, make some coffee, and chat.

   I also have an opinion on restoring edits made by sock accounts in violation of a ban (surely you know that User:Wikipediocracy&Co was blocked as a sock of the improbably named User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver): please do so only if you think that it improves the encyclopedia, and even then it should not be done lightly. This particular question is incredibly vague and has very little relevance to being on ArbCom.

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?

   Do articles get improved, how are disputes solved, how are trolls handled, how are intractable POV editors handled...that's a few of the relevant questions.

4. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

   I think GamerGate, Balkans, AP2 have been effective, from what I can tell, meaning that DS have helped to quell disruptions that otherwise might have gone on forever, given how difficult it can be to get a topic ban at ANI.

6. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS not been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

   I don't know--there's a whole bunch where I haven't seen them acted on, but it's possible that this is in part because I don't pay much attention to areas well outside of my own interests unless they appear on the noticeboards. But I dare say that half of them have not been invoked at ARE in the last few years.

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?

   I can't say that this has happened, but there's many DS areas where I simply don't have much or any experience...Falun Gong, abortion, Liancourt Rocks... (what is Liancourt Rocks??)

10. Other than DS, what measures could ArbCom take in addressing conduct issues? Which, if any, of these alternatives should ArbCom take?

    If it doesn't go by way of a case request, ArbCom should probably stay out of the business of initiating such behavior modification--unless of course it's the child pornography kind of conduct...

12. Of which of your contributions to Wikipedia are you most proud? Why?

    Well, I made a big error of judgment on Unthanksgiving Day, years ago, and had the opportunity to retract and help improve the article. I helped bring a few things up to FA. I've written a ton of articles on topics that otherwise aren't likely to get a lot of coverage, articles within my professional and linguistic expertise--which just shows to which extent we need to globalize our group of editors. And I've made a lot of friends, and I am very happy with that. Oh, I just blocked another antisemite. I'm not necessarily proud of that, but I'm very happy that I've been entrusted with the block button.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from User:GRuban

2. Hi. This seems to be the ArbCom election of candidate personal information, and per WP:OUTING this sort of thing is dangerous to even ask about. But will risk it, I think it's fairly safe. If I get blocked, I'll know I was wrong! Higher up on this page, you are linking to an alternate account that (apparently?) gives your real name, and saying that people know it's you. You (presumably?) have a pretty detailed interview on the Wikipedia blog, in which you write you are proud of your Wikipedia contributions and used them to get tenure (! Congratulations for that, BTW!) ...and yet, you don't link to any of this on your user page. So it's sort of like you want Wikipedia insiders who have been around a while to know who you are. And you want people in your real life to know who you are. But don't want to make it easy for other Wikipedia users? Is this the intent?

   I'm not sure what you're asking, GRuban: "other" Wikipedia users don't, I assume, have much of a need to find out who that other account is. The intent, as I stated before, was to not let the flood of harassment (see the protection of my talk page, for instance, and if you're an admin you'll see why) easily drip from this account, which is that of an administrator who has blocked many a vandal, into that account. That's all. "you don't link to any of this on your user page"--you mean I don't link to the blog, where they did their best to present me in a specific light? I didn't--why would I do that on my user page? One of these LTAs already has my home address, and another complained to me at my HR department, and a third wrote a letter to my chair, the chancellor, and the board of trustees. The more I publicize my real name from this account, the worse it gets, and I'll tell you, by now I'm wondering about the wisdom of any of this--by which I mean editing Wikipedia, using Wikipedia for teaching, helping administer the place.

Ah. I see. I was unclear as to what extent you wanted your real name associated with your account, it seemed in some places, like above, that you didn't mind, now I see that you really want to keep it separate. Thank you for your answer, and I'm sorry you went through that. I'm probably going to support you. Honestly, we can probably delete this whole section, since it's going nowhere good; I don't know if that's allowed, but I wouldn't object. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks, GRuban, but I think that train has left the station. I'm going to retire that account, ask ArbCom for permission for an unlinked account, and be more vigilant. Drmies ( talk) 02:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from User:Ryoung122

2. Greetings,
   I have a few questions but plan to ask them below in a group:
   First, sometimes people get "topic-banned", but then get asked questions later or notifications to respond to. Do you believe that even "topic-banned" editors have a right to respond to questions under the "topic-ban" or to bring potential violations in the topic area to ArbCom?
   Second, sometimes people get falsely accused of being someone else, even when a "checkuser" shows otherwise. I was once accused of being an impersonator whose IP address traced to an entirely different continent. Do you think Administrators should be required to run a "checkuser" before assuming that an account may be a "sockpuppet", when in fact it isn't?
   Third, in America at least, we know that we have a judicial system where if we feel that local judges aren't being fair, an appeal can be made to higher courts/levels of authority. On Wikipedia, it's not clear what to do when Admins misbehave. Instead of turning smaller issues into a full-blown ArbCom discussion, might there be a way to have a more "ombudsman" approach where Wikipedia editors can try to report the problem first before it becomes a full-blown heated issue. Ryoung122 04:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC

   Hello Ryoung122. I'm not sure what you mean with "respond to questions"--if a user is topic-banned they shouldn't be asked questions about something in that particular area. And if they spot a violation in the area--yeah, they should leave that alone. Topic bans are issued because an editor's work in a specific area is deemed problematic, and so it stands to reason that a. they would do well to just leave the entire area to others and b. they may not be the best judge of problematic editing in that particular area.

   No, admins should never be required to run CU before a sock block. First of all, CU is not a magic ball and second, CU is an invasion of privacy, only to be run in certain cases. In your case (mind you I'm not looking at your account or history, just at your words) CU might have proven that the IP address "under" your account and that IP geolocate to different places--but there are many ways in which those things can be spoofed. I'm pretty sure most editors would prefer CU not be run on their account, and our policy agrees with that common-sensical thought.

   "Admin misbehavior" is reported/alleged/discussed frequently enough on WP:AN, for instance, and if it's a smaller thing it doesn't need to get all the way to ArbCom--but the cases that ArbCom has dealt with when I was on it involving admins weren't small.

Question from User:Fæ

2. Relating to a question that Fram raised above, checking this year's block log, you have blocked 281 accounts with a "Username violation" rationale; i.e. so far in 2018, while in total 1,385 accounts have been blocked by you with this rationale. Many of these had made no problematic edits before your block of their new account. For example Sarahgeronimomusic was self interested but not otherwise problematic, LTGCC had made one sandbox edit and Magazine Art appears to have made zero edits. WP:PROMONAME states " Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." Why do you not follow the user name policy, and as an Arbcom member, would you give as much flexibility for trusted users who may be seen as biting newbies by deviating from policy in other ways? Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 17:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

   The "blocking" discussed in the entirety of the section is the hard kind, with autoblock etc. The way I look at it, a soft block, which allows the user to change their name, is gentle, in my opinion. Mind you, Fæ, this has never before been an issue, not until this particular election, and there are better places to bring this matter up for discussion than this page.

Thanks for the confirmation that you have not followed this policy on the correct use of sysop tools for years, and it appears from your choice of words that you will be ignoring policy in the future. I would appreciate it if you would answer the part of my question most relevant to this election, "would you give as much flexibility for trusted users who may be seen as biting newbies by deviating from policy in other ways"?

P.S. with regard to sidelining my question with "there are better places", the competence of Arbcom members accurately to follow policy is highly relevant to whether they are competent to sit in judgement over others. Consequently this place and this time is the best place to examine candidates more deeply than we would ever normally hold administrators to account. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 08:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply