Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from SoWhy

2. Considering that in previous years, many voters expressed unease with voting for candidates who are not admins, why should voters trust you despite this? SoWhy ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Well, I've been around for some time now, and I'd like to think that in the foreseeable future I could be trusted with the administrator tools. I most certainly hope I can gain the community's trust due to the fact that I'm a civil editor with a background in dealing with confidentiality in real life.

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Yes, I'd be inclined to agree. There's a difference between using swearwords out of exasperation and using them in an uncivil manner and OR has reflected on this in an articulate manner.

Questions from Hhkohh

2. As you are a non-admin, why not go to run RfA first? Hhkohh ( talk) 00:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

4. I see you seldom take part in AfD, why? Hhkohh ( talk) 00:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

6. I see you are active in the last 24 hours, but why not answer a question? Hhkohh ( talk) 22:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC) (optional question per below comments) reply

   Apologies for not answering sooner. I do plan on running in the foreseeable future, although I aim to increase my activity levels beforehand. As for AfD: I simply lack interest in it. My interests lie elsewhere - I do a lot of anti-vandalism, CSD and Page Curation work.

Jesus, dude, really? ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Oshwah: Just curious. lol... Hhkohh ( talk) 22:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Collect

2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"? Collect ( talk) 20:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   No, I don't think so. That suggests that ArbCom cases are pre-determined, which they shouldn't be.

4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and sttongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits? Collect ( talk) 20:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I think so. If I were in this situation I'd like to think I'd recuse.

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 out of the US, 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"? Collect ( talk) 20:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Winged Blades of Godric

2. Your ACE2017 guide, written about a year back states:--Candidates must demonstrate, in my opinion, a degree of responsibility. The ideal way of demonstrating this would be through a successful request for adminship. As such, I am of the belief that only administrators should be able to serve on the Committee. as the very introductory statement (Emphasis mine). Exactly zero significant main-space contributions later (excluding minor edits, there are precisely 50 edits to main-space, since the date of your writing the statement till today and all of those 50 are the trivialest of gnomish works) what has changed since then that leads you to take a diametrically opposite stance and partake in the race? ∯WBG ^converse 06:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Purely because I feel as though I have matured within the past year. I recognise now that my views were a little immature and I failed to realise the fact that there are many non-admins who would be good at this job.

4. If successful in this election, what's the chances of seeing you at RfA? ∯WBG ^converse 09:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I've mentioned somewhere else on this page that I'd like to think a run for RfA is likely in the foreseeable future. I'd like to increase my activity a little first, however.

6. For the better part of the last few years, your sole noticeable activity has been to Huggle. I do not see any noticeable contribution to main-space, in terms of writing stuff and that's a massive red-flag for me.This GAR, though years back is pathetic and I see a recent example of seeing offence, where none probably exist.Though the Committee (generally) does not rule on the content aspects, a lot of disputes that make to the ArbCom do derive from varying content-disputes. Why shall I trust you to make accurate binding rulings on involved parties, when you have not been in the trench, ever? Feel free to correct me, if I'm wrong about my observations. ∯WBG ^converse 06:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

8. You write:--Consider myself to be an individual who is capable of staying cool when the editing gets hot.Please provide evidence about any conflicts (over editing or other users) and how you dealt it. ∯WBG ^converse 06:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

10. Pick any three Arbitration cases (that were accepted) from the last four years, explain in detail what aspects/outcomes of the committee you agree with, what aspects/outcomes you disagree with, and what you would attempt to do differently. ∯WBG ^converse 09:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

12. Does there exist any case from the last 4 years, that you would have !voted to accept but was declined by the sitting committee? If yes, please mention and, explain in detail your differential stance. ∯WBG ^converse 09:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

14. How do you feel about the efficiency of the committee? Do you see any need/scope of radical reform? ∯WBG ^converse 09:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

16. Many (and to an extent, me) feels that long-standing users who generally contribute to the project in a highly constructive manner and esp. those who write exceptionally good content should be given more leeway when it comes to sanctioning them except for egregious cases of misconduct. Do you agree? If yes, what will be the bright-line of egregious misconduct for you? (Explain with examples.) If not, why? Does the current atmosphere at WP concur with this line of thought? Explain, in detail ∯WBG ^converse 09:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

18. Priority of RL over these wiki-saga(s) cannot be overstated but why shall we vote for an arbitrator, who is very likely to be inactive, for broad swaths of time? ∯WBG ^converse 11:29, 11 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Nick

2. You state I'm very knowledgeable about confidentiality owing to my parents' (and grandparents', actually!) field of work.. You'll need to prove this - so here's your chance. Fire away...

   I did say I wasn't comfortable talking about this publicly, but let's just say that the field of work deals with children in particular, and we've had to deal with very sensitive disclosures and information. As I'm > 18 I've had to sign a document relating to confidentiality with regards to this. If an arb is interested in any of this then they are more than welcome to email me.

4. Do you also think saying I'm very knowledgeable about confidentiality owing to my parents' (and grandparents', actually!) field of work. might be somewhat immature and/or somewhat patronising to the community (effectively a 'trust me, I know what I'm doing' plea) ? Please explain your answer in some detail

   I don't think so... I certainly didn't mean for it to come across that way, just that my background would hopefully be of help.

Questions from Softlavender

2. Hi Patient Zero, what consensus determination (closing ANI/AN threads, closing RfCs, closing non-unanimous AfDs, etc.) have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 2 years? Softlavender ( talk) 01:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I used to make some ANI closures but stopped doing that over the past year or so as I felt I wasn't experienced enough at the time. It's something I'd like to return to, however.

4. What dispute-resolution work have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 2 years? Or if necessary, more broadly, what dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 2 years? Softlavender ( talk) 01:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

6. What has or have been the focus(es) of your Wikipedia activity over the past 2 years? Softlavender ( talk) 01:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Anti-vandalism work, mainly. I also do a lot of work relating to CSD and Page Curation too - in particular I keep a lookout for possible U5s and attack pages.

8. How does your Wikipedia activity of the past 2 years specifically qualify you for ArbCom? Softlavender ( talk) 01:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Peacemaker67

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

Question from Boing! said Zebedee

2. I see you have only made a little over 3,000 edits to main space, and a lot of that appears to be anti-vandalism work and use of semi-automated tools like Huggle. There's nothing wrong with that and I applaud it. But there is a strong feeling among many, which I share, that those running for positions of power should have a significant personal investment in content work. The feeling is perhaps best summed up by asking why should someone who does not have the understanding of how it feels to put significant effort into creating content have authority over those who do? Do you have any thoughts on that? Can you identify what you consider your best content work? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Boing! said Zebedee, this goes along the lines of my Q3 but quite better-phrased:-) ∯WBG ^converse 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Banedon

2. I see you've said an Arbcom case doesn't have to result in sanctions above. Given that, what is your opinion of this?

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