From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from LakesideMiners

  2. What exactly do you mean by I would also suggest that the ArbCom occasionally consider cases of undisclosed paid editing. The duck test may be appropriate; an editor who walks like a paid editor and quacks may be a paid editor. The ArbCom can receive privileged information, avoiding the prohibition against doxing undisclosed paid editors? Are you saying that there should be some cases where ArbCom should let undisclosed paid editing happen? LakesideMiners My Talk Page 19:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    No. Undisclosed paidPaid editing should never be tolerated. On the contrary, if the ArbCom has non-public information about paid editing, it can block the editor based on the non-public information.

Questions from JzG

  2. Do you think UPE is within ArbCom's remit, or would it require a separate community discussion to explicitly add it? Guy ( Help!) 20:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    UPE is within ArbCom's remit. The ArbCom's mission is primarily to deal with serious conduct disputes that the community is unable to resolve. UPE is a conduct issue. If the community cannot deal with UPE or prefers not to deal with it, it does fall within the charter of the ArbCom.

Question from Gerda Arendt

  2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    What OR said had at least three parts, and I will comment separately. First, OR was apparently criticizing the administrator, TS, who had closed the ANI thread but promptly filed an RFAR. On that matter, I disagree, because the TS meant that the community was not going to resolve the complaint, and that was why TS asked ArbCom to take the case. Second, OR was commenting that civility is more complex than the avoidance of bad words. On that point, I agree. OR may have been saying that "civil POV-pushing" can be more disruptive than profanity, and I agree in general; disruption should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Third, OR was declining to accept the case, and at the time I urged the ArbCom to accept the case, and it was declined, but was refiled a few months later and then accepted. I think that I was right that the case should have been accepted on the first request.

Questions from Collect

  2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?
    No. ArbCom should open a case based on whether it appears that sanctions may need to be applied. There should not be any assumption that it will result in sanctions, or what the nature of the sanctions will 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?
    An arbitrator should recuse from a case in which they cannot be impartial. The guideline that administrators should avoid actions on cases where they are involved also applies, even more strongly, to arbitrators. As with administrators, this is a judgment call.
  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"?
    When I was a Help Desk regular, sometimes there would be a detailed “hypothetical” question about an issue. I knew that it was unwise to answer a detailed hypothetical question without researching the specific actual issue and commenting on it. I have not researched the actual case in enough depth to consider myself qualified to comment on whether it was handled fairly. I am not planning to review the case in order to state an opinion on the merits of a decided ArbCom case.
    Collect ( talk) 20:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Hhkohh

  2. As you are a non-admin, why not go to run a third RfA first? Hhkohh ( talk) 00:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I can make at least as much of a difference in maintaining and improving the quality of the encyclopedia in a term as an arbitrator as I could as an administrator. If I am elected, I will consider making a third RFA either during or at the end of my term. Maintaining quality is even more important for the ArbCom as for the corps of administrators.
  4. What do you think of this case? Hhkohh ( talk) 01:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    The ArbCom was, in my opinion, right to accept the case, and their finding was reasonable. Not every case requires sanctions. This case did result in one editor being banned, and in a few admonitions.
  6. What do you think of this AfD? Hhkohh ( talk) 01:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Sometimes an article improves during the seven-day AFD to the point where it should be kept. The article as nominated should have been deleted, and the article as it is now should be kept.
  8. Since Arbcom members will gain checkuser tool, what do you think of this SPI now? Will you report this kind of users again if they are not violate WP:SOCK? Hhkohh ( talk) 01:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    First, different SPI clerks have handled similar reports differently. Other similar cases have resulted in blocks. Second, I do not plan to use the Checkuser tool on any case that I initiate. Third, I do not think that I made a mistake, but I am willing to learn from differences of opinion.

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

  2. You say "In recent years the ArbCom has heard fewer cases than in earlier years, because many cases are resolved by the community or by Arbitration Enforcement. I think that the ArbCom should follow a middle-ground approach, more than recently but fewer than in the past." Where will these extra cases come from if the community is solving problems and not referring them to ArbCom? Should ArbCom proactively pursue extra problems that have not been referred by the community? If so, would that require a change in policy (which ArbCom does not have the power to do)? And if not, in what way is this different to the current way of working?
    I am not advocating that ArbCom initiate cases on its own motion, but that ArbCom accept more cases rather than declining them, and encourage editors to file more requests and let the arbitrators decide what cases to accept.
  4. You "suggest a "three-trip rule" will work. How would that be implemented? under which issues, either content issues or contentious editors, that have already been considered twice by the community and come back a third time are ready for the deliberate quasi-judicial process of arbitration" Does that mean ArbCom should proactively take over such "three-trip" cases without waiting for the community to refer them? Again, if so, does that require a change of policy? Also, "content issues"? How is ArbCom supposed to become an arbiter for content issues without a change in policy, which it does not have the power to effect?
    First, as to content issues, I was referring to disputes that begin as content disputes but involve conduct issues that make the resolution of the content dispute impossible. ArbCom discretionary sanctions have been fashioned largely to deal with areas of battleground editing that have been real battlegrounds. I was referring to areas where conduct, such as battleground editing, prevents resolution of the content issue. Second, I am not advocating that ArbCom initiate cases about battleground areas or disruptive editors on its own motion, but only that ArbCom should accept such cases rather than declining them. ArbCom should consider generally encouraging editors to file more requests, and let the arbitrators decide which cases should be heard.
  6. You say "I would also suggest that the ArbCom occasionally consider cases of undisclosed paid editing". Similarly, is that a proactive involvement in such cases without waiting for a referral from the community? If so, is a policy change needed, and if not and you mean to wait for community referral, how is that a change?
    I am not recommending that ArbCom consider undisclosed paid editing on its own motion, but that ArbCom should encourage editors to file cases. The change will be only in establishing that ArbCom has the power to deal with undisclosed paid editing, and encouraging users to report it.
  8. I see you have been unsuccessful twice at RfA. How do you reflect on the reasons given for opposing your candidacy, and do you think the issues raised might affect your suitability for ArbCom?
    The first unsuccessful RFA was due primarily to lack of experience, and I have more experience now. The opposition to my RFA in 2017 was, I think, primarily due to differences in philosophy, that I thought that the maintenance of quality was the most important priority, even more important, for instance, than expansion; other editors disagreed with me. In running for arbitrator, I am appealing to editors who either agreed with me in 2017, or have come to my opinion, or who think that a focus on quality is especially important for an arbitrator.
    Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 01:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  10. You say "In running for arbitrator, I am appealing to editors who either agreed with me in 2017, or have come to my opinion, or who think that a focus on quality is especially important for an arbitrator". Do you not think that, as a potential arbitrator, you should be trying to appeal to everyone rather than just those who agree with you? Is it not especially important that an arbitrator endeavour to be fair to all sides and should make an effort to appeal to people with whom they might disagree? I'm asking this because your words give the impression that your are running in order to pursue your own agenda and that you would actively support those who share your personal opinions. Can you understand my concern, and what can you say to alleviate it? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

    Also, re the "who think that a focus on quality is especially important for an arbitrator" part. Does that imply that those who will not support you do not think that a focus on quality is especially important for an arbitrator? On reflection, do you not think it might sound a little arrogant? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

    First, no one can be all things to all people, and I meant that I recognize that I will not satisfy everyone. I will try to be fair to everyone. I would like everyone to agree to trust my judgment. I do not have what I consider a personal agenda, only a commitment to quality. As to those who do not support me, I recognize that they have various reasons. I think that everyone supports the concept of quality, but reasonable editors can have different reasonable sets of priorities.
  12. In answer to User:LakesideMiners, above, you say "Paid editing should never be tolerated." Given that that is the opposite to actual policy and that paid editing is explicitly allowed, how will your lack of tolerance manifest itself? Will you try to change Wikipedia/Wikimedia policy (which ArbCom does not have the power to do), ignore policy and try to enforce your own personal opinions, or something else? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Good catch. I meant that undisclosed paid editing should never be tolerated, and have revised the above statement. Disclosed paid editing should be viewed with caution, and the current policies are appropriate. The ArbCom should act decisively against undisclosed paid editing.
    Ah, understood, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  14. In answer to my second question, you did not say anything about how your proposed "three-trip rule" would work. How would it be implemented? Would it require a policy change? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I am not suggesting a policy change, only a change in how discretion is used. I am advocating that some cases that are currently declined should be accepted.
    OK, so the three-trip thing is a suggested criterion for considering whether to accept or decline. I understand now, thank you. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  16. In answer to Beeblebrox below, asking about the proposed closure of WP:MedCom, you say "I think that there needs to be a last stop for mediation of content disputes." Given that MedCom has no power to make binding decisions, how can it be (or even have been) a last stop? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Mediation, whether at DRN, at MedCom, or elsewhere is voluntary. I meant that there should be a last stop available to editors who are voluntarily looking for mediation, in particular a last stop before going to a conduct forum. I am not supporting the idea that is periodically proposed of a content arbitration process.

Questions from Winged Blades of Godric

  2. Does not the proposal mentioned over here concur with a lack of situational awareness? ∯WBG converse 07:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I was in a minority of one, and I am willing to agree with the community in the particular about WikiProjects.
  4. Arbitration cases often tend to be very long and involve reading a magnanimous amount of stuff. I get the motivation behind avoiding text-walls but they are unavoidable, esp. if one wishes to comprehensively understand the mindset of different editors which in turn, is very relevant for being a good arbitrator. In light of that, please comment on your moderation-tactics over this DRN thread. ∯WBG converse 07:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    First, text-walls are problematic for both moderators and arbitrators, but a moderator, with multiple rounds, can instruct overly verbose editors to be concise, while an arbitrator simply has to extract meaning. However, second, I failed that moderation not because of text-walls, but because the editors were not following instructions; the ArbCom has the ability to impose sanctions on editors who do not follow instructions.
  6. Your last RfA held a prominent view that you are not willing to learn from your mistakes. That you have self-written I don't plan to change them (ideas, actions et al) much, at least not because other editors disagree (The italicised text is my addition to provide a relevancy), it paints a picture of someone acutely opposed to appreciating other's viewpoints and IMHO, listening with a pre-biased mentality is as good as not listening at all. Won't this affect your discussions with fellow-arbitrators and ultimately, the visible output to the community? Elucidate, please. ∯WBG converse 10:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I do consider the opinions of other editors, and I did not mean that I do not intend to listen to other editors. The context was in particular that I did not intend to change my opinions and ideas simply because other editors disagreed with me or because I was in a minority. I was in particular referring to my focus on maintaining quality. I do not intend to change my philosophy about the encyclopedia or my general approach to being a volunteer editor because other editors disagree; reasonable humans can disagree, and a minority viewpoint is often needed. There is room in Wikipedia for different reasonably held opinions, and I was saying that I will not necessarily change my view or philosophy simply because of disagreement. In specific instances, I will accept the will of the majority. I will listen to other editors and be informed by their views, especially before forming my opinion.
  8. Pick any three Arbitration cases (that were accepted) from the last four years, explain what aspects/outcomes of the committee you agree with, what aspects/outcomes you disagree with, and what you would attempt to do differently.the latter, (if any), in a quite detailed form. ∯WBG converse 10:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I will discuss Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. The first case, Michael Hardy, was in my opinion correctly decided with regard to the parties. I would have preferred stronger warnings, but the ArbCom seemed to be going out of its way to be as kind as possible. The September 2018 incident shows that a warning from the ArbCom doesn’t make a productive but harsh editor into a productive and cooperative editor, and that the ArbCom cannot always prevent future issues. However, the reminder by the ArbCom to itself is just bizarre. After reading it three times, I am still not sure whether the ArbCom meant that they should not have taken the case. It is my opinion that the self-admonition did more harm than good, and may have discouraged editors from filing cases. It can be interpreted as meaning that the ArbCom should not have taken the case in the first place. My opinion is that the ArbCom should have taken the case, even though the end result was only warnings and not penalties.

Joefromrandb, which was accepted in January 2018, should have been accepted in September 2018. This was an example of a case that had already taken multiple trips to WP:ANI. The editor in question had been difficult for at least four previous years, and ArbCom was naively optimistic in thinking that they would agree to change their behavior to avoid arbitration. The final result, which was that the editor was banned, was unfortunately necessary, but it would have been useful if a hearing had been held that could have fashioned some remedy for editors who are easily provoked The case was intended not only to deal with Joe, but to look into whether other editors were provoking Joe. The ArbCom reached a necessary but unfortunate conclusion, but holding the case four months earlier might have been more effective.

The Infoboxes case was an example of a case about an issue that had already taken multiple trips to WP:ANI, both about an issue (disruptive editing of infobox disputes) and about certain editors. The result was reasonable, to fashion a special type of discretionary sanction. I would have also considered draconian action such as blocks, topic-bans, or even site-bans for certain editors, but the final result has addressed the problem.

  2. How do you feel about the efficiency of the committee? Do you see any need/scope of radical reform? ∯WBG converse 10:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    The committee is usually behind schedule in deciding cases. I have seen various opinions as to why, but, as an arbitrator, I will learn from observation and experience how to streamline proceedings I do not think, at present, that radical reform is necessary, but improvement is desirable.
  4. Your nomination statement gives impression of making the ARBCOM being being extremely proactive in dealing with a miscellany of issues, without any need of referral from community. That would need a massive change in ARBPOL, which must be executed by the community and which, very-predictably won't happen in the foreseeable future. Am I correct, as to the impressions? Or do you take a nuanced stance that all cases, which are presented to ArbCom, (it takes a lone editor to do so!) after a third-trip ought be accepted. ∯WBG converse 10:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I can see that my brief description of the "three trips" concept was too brief, and can see that I seemed to be arguing that the ArbCom should take cases on its own motion. That was not and is not my intent. I was saying that the ArbCom should take some cases that are brought by other editors that it has sometimes declined. The ArbCom has used and should use judgment as to what cases to accept.
  6. You have oft-mentioned Arbitration Enforcement as draconian.If you desire diffs, I can provide them.) Can you clarify your grievances with the procedure? If you are elected, will you try to better the method? If yes, how? ∯WBG converse 10:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I have no grievances with Arbitration Enforcement. It is draconian because it needs to be draconian. I think that Arbitration Enforcement is an area where unpleasant remedies are needed to deal with unpleasant editors. When I characterize it as draconian, it is usually as a warning to disruptive editors.
  8. 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 10:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I agree that the positive contributions of editors to Wikipedia need to be considered, either by ArbCom or by the community, in deciding whether to impose sanctions. I do not agree with an idea that there should be a special privileged class of elite editors who are exempt from the usual rules of civility. I do not know whether that was implied by the question. It does seem that some editors think either that there should be such an elite or that there is such an elite. I think that a sort of sliding scale should be used by ArbCom in weighing positive contributions of editors against any negatives. To answer the question however about egregious misconduct, I think that there should be a hard line against personal attacks. Treating editors with basic respect is more important than the avoidance of profanity (although profanity should be avoided). As to what the current atmosphere is, I think that there are an extremely wide range of opinions as to how much latitude should be given to editors who are highly productive.
Thank you for answering my questions; it's extremely appreciated:-) ∯WBG converse 12:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from SoWhy

  2. Building upon Hhkohh's question, a little over a year ago at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon 2, the community (including myself) raised various reasons why they do not trust your judgment. Even though adminship is not a requirement for ArbCom, you are essentially asking for people to trust your judgment when deciding cases, so what has changed since the last RfA that people should do so now? Regards So Why 08:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I am again asking editors to trust my judgment. I am in particular asking editors to trust my judgment as to how to maintain and enforce the quality of the encyclopedia in cases that are decided in a deliberative manner. I don't think that I have changed much in the past year, so I am hoping either that editors have improved their opinion of me, or that editors are focused on the same concerns as I am.

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) 19:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Oversight (that is, suppression) and Checkuser are positions requiring a very high degree of trusted judgment, because these functionaries must act on information which is and must remain non-public, but the resulting actions are very public. (Well, the hole in the record from suppression is public.) So I would be looking both trust in their ability to preserve the secrecy of information, trust in their ability to act on it appropriately without compromising the secrecy, and excellent judgment as to when they are and are not involved. In particular, a functionary (arbitrator, Checkuser, Oversighter) must not only be impartial, but must be seen to be impartial. I would have serious concerns about any possible breach of secrecy, and about any possibility that the functionary was in any way, however slight, biased. Any indication of untrustworthiness or partiality should be a warning flag.

Question from Cabayi

  2. You were previously elected to a role but didn't act on it. Will this election be different? Cabayi ( talk) 17:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Five days silence on the question is pretty eloquent. No further answer needed, thank you. Cabayi ( talk) 17:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  1. I was never asked to take on any specific functions as a coordinator of New Page reviewing, and so I continued to perform the primary duties of a reviewer. To the best of my knowledge, the role was never implemented.

Questions from User:Softlavender

  2. Above, to Boing! said Zebedee, you said "ArbCom should consider generally encouraging editors to file more requests, and let the arbitrators decide which cases should be heard." That's what happens now: People submit cases, and the arbitrators decide which cases should be heard. So how is that any different from what happens now? Softlavender ( talk) 14:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I am not suggesting that the procedure be changed. I am suggesting a subtle two-part change. First, the ArbCom should accept more cases, in particular more of the case requests that fall into a middle ground, neither obviously out of line, nor obviously necessary to accept. Second, partly by accepting more cases, the ArbCom should in a subtle way signal its readiness to accept more discretionary cases. Perhaps other editors do not perceive what I do, which is that I perceive that the ArbCom would in general prefer to keep its number of cases to a minimum. I am suggesting that the number of cases should be in a middle ground by somewhat different use of discretionary power.
  4. Your proposal of if someone gets brought to a noticeboard more than twice, it should go to ArbCom sounds like a two-strike rule. Many editors who edit a lot and in high-volume areas or highly contentious areas get brought to noticeboards a lot, usually by disgruntled trolls or other disruptive editors. Likewise, many editors get brought to noticeboards several times, and get blocks of increasing lengths until they either reform, or the community !votes to indef them. Why should a small handful of people spend several weeks poring over matters that the community as a whole successfully resolves fairly quickly? Why should those interested or involved argue about a situation or editor for several weeks on end when the community can resolve things quickly and efficiently without all that time-sink? Especially if all that is going to happen is a standard block escalation or a standard topic ban? That's why we have block escalations, and that's why we don't indef every editor for one or two or three reported issues. Why should ArbCom handle more cases than it needs to? This seems to me like the police arresting people to fill some sort of quota rather than because the person deserves the arrest. ArbCom is the symbolic highest court on Wikipedia, and should only be utilized if all of the other appropriate "courts" have been exhausted or used to their best ability.

    So, again, why should ArbCom handle more cases than it needs to, and why should reported issues/editors go to ArbCom after only two or three noticeboard reports? Softlavender ( talk) 14:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

    I agree that ArbCom should not handle cases that the community resolves quickly and efficiently. I think that there are some editors and subject areas that the community does not resolve quickly and efficiently, but that divide the community. You are right, and perhaps I should have said, that ArbCom does not need to take up cases where the two or three previous trips were prompted by trolls or flamers. However, my opinion is that there are some editors and some issues that divide the community for extended periods of time. I think that am not saying that ArbCom should accept more cases than it needs to, but SoftLavender and I may have different ideas of when ArbCom needs to take cases.

Question from Beeblebrox

  1. In the recent, still open discussion of closing the Mediation Committee, you made a series of comments regarding why you felt the proposal as flawed. The last of those comments has me a little perpelexed:

    “You should have asked what are the next steps before just going ahead with crossing a process off a list. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:45 am, 15 October 2018, Monday (25 days ago) (UTC−8)”

    The proposal is to mark an almost totally unused process as historical. Nothing more. Between this and other comments you made it seems you are implying that it must be replaced with something. So my question is: Is that in fact what you are saying, and if so, why would replacing something not being used in any meaningful way be necessary? Do you think another committee of some sort should replace it?

    I think that there needs to be a last stop for mediation of content disputes, even if it is very seldom used, as it has been in the past two years. We are either fortunate that there have been no intransigent content disputes in the past two years, or perhaps unfortunate that all stubborn content disputes have been tainted by conduct. Yes, we need some plan for what to do if a content dispute is beyond the ability of DRN and is too complex for RFC. I don't think that sending such cases to ArbCom is a good idea, and I think that having a "safety net", even if it isn't used, is a good idea. So I do think that a MedCom 2 is in order.

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?
    I agree that there was very little effort at dispute resolution before the ArbCom took the case. The end result was that one editor was banned and a few editors were cautioned, which probably does mean that the ArbCom did not need to take the case. However, consistently with my view that ArbCom should take more cases rather than fewer, no harm was done, and some good was done.

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?
    I think, if I understand the thrust of Banedon's comments, that what I am saying is consistent with what Banedon is saying, that ArbCom should accept cases when there might need to be sanctions rather than when it is obvious that there needs to be sanctions.

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) 09:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    The first part of this question is about what are the “principles and spirit” that ArbCom should consider.in deciding cases. The questioner is right that the five pillars are essential. In particular, the two pillars that must be considered by ArbCom are neutral point of view and civility, because many cases originate with uncivil conduct in pursuing a non-neutral viewpoint. The second and third parts of the question is about how the ArbCom should provide detailed rationales for its decisions. This is currently done by listing the Principles and the Findings of Fact. I think that the ArbCom should be willing to explain their rationale when questions are asked on a case talk page. Sometimes the ArbCom has done that well, and not always. The way to improve that compliance is for the ArbCom to make it clear that the talk pages of a case are open for questions.
  4. There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
    1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
    2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
    3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    This set of questions have to do with incivility. First, the arbitrators should use judgment as to how to address comments by an editor that are derogatory to a group, such as a gender, nationality, or religion. Depending on whether the comments are directly related to the case, the arbitrators may be better off to ignore the comments, to respond to them or collapse them, or to take them into account in deciding to sanction an editor. Second, the arbitrators should consider all of the evidence and all of the context as background in deciding a case. If an editor makes statements that are contrary to fact or contradictory, the arbitrators may ask for clarification or resolution, or may take the circumstances into account in formulating a judgment. The third part of the question is about the unfortunate case where an arbitrator is uncivil. The best response for another arbitrator normally is to respond privately (to the arbitrators’ mailing list). In extreme cases, an arbitrator may have a duty to admonish another arbitrator publicly.
  6. In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    This question has to do with so-called civil POV pushing, which is a frequent and sometimes serious problem. It is often not actually civil, in that sometimes the POV-pusher, while avoiding the use of profanity, can be so aggressive as to be insulting. If a case alleges civil POV-pushing, it is important that the arbitrators ask that party to provide adequate diffs to demonstrate the pattern. It is true that the ArbCom has not always done this well. There is a conflict between the desire of the ArbCom to observe case deadlines and the need for detailed review of the record when a long-term pattern of POV-pushing is alleged.

Question from Shrike

  2. There are currently ongoing ARCA could you state your opinion about the issue [ [1]].
    I haven't spent a long time analyzing the modified rule. After reading it twice, I find it incomprehensible. I don't think that incomprehensible rules are a good idea. I agree that it was obviously meant to solve a real problem, which is edit-warring about the South Levant, but that it needs to be either tossed or fixed. I think that I agree with the critics of the rule.

Questions from Hijiri88

  2. You have suggested a number of times that disputes at ANI be taken to ArbCom ( here for example), even if it was the first time said disputes had been brought to the community's attention (as here), with the stated rationale occasionally being that ArbCom has not taken many cases in recent years, which point you also made in your statement.
    1. Do you believe that the process of ArbCom accepting cases, or rejecting them due to a lack of prior dispute resolution attempts, should be simplified/streamlined?
    2. If so, would you also propose streamlining other parts of the Arbitration process, to make it into a simpler process that works more like an "alternate" to community resolution?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  1. I do not see the need to simplify the process by which ArbCom accepts cases, only to change what cases are accepted. I do think that some streamlining of the process is probably in order, possibly a "fast-track" procedure for cases where a shortened evidentiary process can be used.
  3. 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?
    The essay is a good one, because so-called civil POV-pushing is a problem. Sometimes the conduct of the POV-pusher is aggressive enough to be insulting (which is not civil). ArbCom needs to read the entire record of a case in detail carefully in order to identify and deal with so-called civil POV-pushing. I will note that some of the areas where the essay says civil POV-pushing is common have required ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and I agree that discretionary sanctions are the right remedy in such battleground areas.
  5. 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 that the definition of hounding offered in that decision is better than the current decision. As mentioned, there are times when following another editor closely is unpleasantly necessary, if the editor who is being followed has behaved questionably. The ArbCom must use judgment in deciding when following an editor is unpleasantly necessary, and when it is being done without adequate cause and constitutes harassment or hounding.

Questions from Atsme

  2. Do you have the time and patience necessary to devote to this highly taxing responsibility, and by that I mean not judging an editor based on preconceived notions without careful examination of the case or simply agreeing with aspersions cast by opposing editors you may know and trust without personally investigating the diffs in the context the challenged editor intended, or waiting until other arbs have posted their conclusions and simply agreeing in an effort to avoid making waves? My primary concern is that some arbs are accepting the position when it’s quite obvious they neither have the time nor the patience required to actually read the diffs provided as evidence to make sure they were presented in the context originally intended by the challenged editor.
    If elected, I will take my responsibilities as an arbitrator very seriously, and will take the time to review the cases in detail personally before voting. I have no intention of relying on the other arbitrators or parties. If I do not have time to review a case in detail, I will recuse.

Question 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) 22:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I do not participate in any of these sites either as a reader or as a writer. Based on what I have read about Wikipediocracy, I think that it does more harm than any possible good. I am not familiar with the other forums and so am not sure that they have no redeeming value, but I think that off-site criticism is generally more harmful than useful.
  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 reasons or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Wikipedia's discipline committee? Carrite ( talk) 22:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I cannot say whether "each and every" ban is justified or unjustified, because the evidence is not public. I think that WMF bans are appropriate in a few cases, in particular when a possible criminal offense such as child endangerment or threats of injury is being investigated. ArbCom should not ban individuals except in such instances. I do not want to comment on whether any specific bans have been appropriate without knowledge that I do not have.
Thank you for your answers. Carrite ( talk) 06:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Feminist

  2. How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?
    I am not sure whether the question is (1) about communicating Wikipedia processes to people outside the Wikipedia community, or (2) about communicating ArbCom processes to the Wikipedia community. I think that the former (1) is primarily the responsibility of the WMF, although I have not seen an effort on that part. It could also be a special volunteer role, not an ArbCom function. The second (2) should be communicated by answering questions and ensuring that case decisions are self-explanatory.
Thank you for your answer. feminist ( talk) 10:04, 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?
    An individual must, unfortunately, be site-banned from the English Wikipedia if it appears after consideration that they are a net negative to the project, that they cause more harm than good, and that there is no way that their disruptive influence can be contained by topic bans or interaction bans. An editor who requires multiple sanctions is usually an editor who is toxic and requires a site ban. An editor who has a lengthy block log and does not learn from their blocks is also often an editor who warrants a site ban.
  4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way shape or form. At one time, a remedy call 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?
    Ultimately, the only sanction that is self-enforcing is a block. Anything else with regard to civility is only a warning. (Interaction bans and topic bans are as good as the willingness of the editor to respect the ban, and the readiness of the community or the ArbCom to enforce the ban with blocks.) I have proposed and will propose again a system of automatically escalating blocks for habitually uncivil users, beginning with four days, then one week, then two weeks, then one month, with a provision that the blocks cannot be reduced without community or ArbCom consent.
  6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?
    I agree that there is a Super Mario effect. Depending on the circumstances, it may be a problem or the right situation. The Super Mario effect is that an administrator who is guilty of serious misconduct is desysopped rather than site-banned. The ArbCom should consider whether the misconduct of the administrator is conduct that indicates that they will be a net negative to the project as a regular editor. If they will be a net negative to the project even after being desysopped, a ban is in order. If they are more likely to be a benefit or neutral to the project after being desysopped, they should be allowed to edit (and they may go away, edit constructively, or be banned later). Sometimes the Super Mario effect is not a problem.
  8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
    Normally the fact that an individual has been considered by the ArbCom is a sufficient warning. Only in rare cases are admonitions and warnings in a case useful, other than as a reminder by the arbitrators to themselves that they did something.

Insider Baseball

  2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
    In my opinion, the Workshop and the Proposed Decision can be combined. The Workshop provides the ability for non-arbitrators to enter proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, but ArbCom seldom acts on those entries. It should be sufficient for arbitrators to enter principles, findings of fact, and remedies, and for the community to comment, and to make suggestions on the talk pages.

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?
    I would reply that I would discuss it with the other arbitrators, and then discuss it on the list, UNLESS I and the other arbitrators had agreed that I could decline to unblock, in which case I would decline and then notify. I will never unblock for spamming or BLP without first discussing with the other arbitrators.
  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.
    I think that this question is for sitting arbitrators. However, a case of disagreeing with the majority and taking an unpopular view is my 2017 RFA, in which I expressed views about quality control that proved more restrictive than some members of the community liked.
  6. Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?
    Yes.
  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 am willing to go through the investigatory process and desysop the admin. I would consider banning the admin. A socking user is a net negative to the project, and should not be protected by the Super Mario effect.
  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?
    I am not particularly familiar with the privacy policy and access to non-public data policy, although I have read them. I am familiar with non-public data policies in general, having signed HIPAA privacy agreements as a system tester in the course of employment. What I find interesting is that they are written in difficult=to-read legalese. Non-public data policies that I have signed for the US Government are easier to understand. But I understand that the WMF non-public data policy says: "Our non-public data must be protected."
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) 05:14, 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) 00:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Yes. I am concerned that far-right and alt-right editors are trying to use Wikipedia. To clarify, what they are trying to do at first is what they perceive as making Wikipedia neutral, because they perceive Wikipedia as left-wing (just as they perceive the mainstream media as left-wing). The reason why is that I have seen attempts by right-wing editors to impose what they see as a neutral point of view and that the Wikipedia community sees as a right-wing point of view. This is a form of so-called civil POV-pushing. In the United States, the ArbCom has already done what it needs to do by establishing ArbCom discretionary sanctions in the area of American politics since 1932. A similar solution, consisting of a full evidentiary case followed by discretionary sanctions, may be necessary in the future with regard to British politics, continental European politics, or the politics of other Anglophone countries.

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?
    The rules on undisclosed paid editing are not weak. It is prohibited. Our enforcement of the rules is often weak, and that may have been what was meant. I advocate extending the duck test to UPE. If it walks, swims, and flies like UPE, and quacks, it is probably an undisclosed paid duck. I think that this is equivalent to what lawyers call a preponderance of the evidence standard. Some might think that banning an editor for UPE based on a duck or preponderance test is harsh, but my opinion is that such a policy will deter UPE, and the only other editors who would be intimidated are those who quack without being paid to quack. Admins of course need to follow the same rules. There should not be a Super Mario effect for an admin who does undisclosed paid editing. Undisclosed paid editing by an admin is a breach of editorial trust and a breach of administrative trust.
  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?
    Any complaint sent to an arbitrator expressing a concern about an administrator who is violating the trust of the community by undisclosed paid editing should be sent to the other arbitrators, who are also trusted to keep it in confidentiality if necessary. I cannot comment on the specific case because I am not a current arbitrator, so I do not know whether your concern was given due consideration.

Questions from David Tornheim

  2. 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.
    I have not compared the Encyclopedia Britannica article on acupuncture with the Wikipedia article on acupuncture. How acupuncture should be characterized is primarily a content issue, and is only within the scope of ArbCom to the extent that conduct issues have interfered with the resolution of content. ArbCom has addressed content issues concerning pseudo-science and alternative medicine via ArbCom discretionary sanctions.
  4. 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?
    Some so-called complementary and alternative medical treatments are clearly pseudo-science, some are controversial, and some are scientifically accepted. The New England Journal of Medicine is a highly reliable source that satisfies the Wikipedia guidelines on medical reliable sources. I have not reviewed any particular issue about alternative medical treatment. Quackwatch is normally a reliable source, but the NEJM is an even more reliable source with academic peer-reviewing.
  6. 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 don't think that this is happening in the way that you describe it, but I know that some editors think that is happening in some areas. In that case, the editors who think that they are being squelched should ask the ArbCom to hear the case, or to open a new case if there has already been a case (and maybe discretionary sanctions). As an arbitrator, I will review the record carefully to try to see past any biases that I have to see whether the community is being fair. If disputes in such an area have already gone repeatedly to WP:ANI, it would be the sort of case that I have said ArbCom probably should hear (even if I agree with the majority and disagree at the outset with the minority).
  8. 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?

Questions 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. PPS. Yes - you can use Sci Hub to access the article without any paywalls. Do let me know if you have any questions about using that platform.
    User:Piotrus - I have not read the paper. I did read the abstract (in English), and I think that the conclusions in the abstract are interesting, and reflect well on the ArbCom. Is the paper available free? It appeared that it was behind a paywall.

Questions from Alan347

  2. How many hours / week do you spend on Wikipedia?
    I try to spend about 7 hours a week on Wikipedia, but wind up spending between 14 and 21 hours.
  4. What is Quality and do you agree with Robert Pirsig's Philosophical viewpoint that Quality is an a priori concept ?
    When I have referred to Quality, I have been referring to the match between the content of Wikipedia and the purpose of Wikipedia. I haven't read Pirsig in many years and don't have his book handy. I agree that the concept of quality is philosophically an a priori concept, but any particular judgment as to quality is inherently a posteriori because it is based on what one is assessing as to quality.

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?
    Based on what you say, the question is whether the material in question is useful (that is, clarifying the content) or redundant (restating what is already clear). That question is probably a question that should be decided by discussion on the article talk page. The most important part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is Discuss.

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?
    This is a difficult question, but ArbCom should consider the extent to which the standards for DS are clear so that different reasonable administrators will arrive at similar findings. If different administrators usually agree, DS is working well. If different administrators usually disagree, the rules need refinement and review.
  4. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?
    The areas in which DS has been most effective are those that are no longer covered by DS, presumably because the disruptive editors were blocked or went away.
  6. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS not been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?
    The area where I think that Discretionary Sanctions have been most necessary but least effective is Palestine and Israel. That area has had to go back to the ArbCom three times, rather than once. One good thing came of it, and that is the concept of Extended Confirmed users, in order to reduce sockpuppetry. However, the problem is simply that feelings on both sides are so intense that it has not been possible to craft an adequate remedy without hampering improvement of the articles.
  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 am not sure that I understand the question, or maybe I think it is a weird question. I am not aware of any cases where DS has been effective but has been detrimental, and it isn't obvious how that would happen.
  10. Other than DS, what measures could ArbCom take in addressing conduct issues? Which, if any, of these alternatives should ArbCom take?
    When there are conduct issues, blocks should always be considered. I would suggest that built-in escalating blocks, 2 days, 4 days, 7 days, 14 days, one month, may be necessary, either handed out by ArbCom or handed out by DS.
  12. Of which of your contributions to Wikipedia are you most proud? Why?
    I am most satisfied with my efforts to be a peacemaker, a Wikipedian who contributes to the resolving of conflicts. I am aware that trying to resolve conflict doesn't always please everyone, and I haven't tried to please everyone, but to be right most of the time in maintaining quality. I would like to contribute further to resolving conflict in Wikipedia by serving as an arbitrator of cases that divide and polarize the community.

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:Ryoung122

  2. Greetings,

One of the problems that you mentioned, "uncivil editors", includes not just external incivility but internal incivility, where some "insider" editors set up a power structure similar to a virtual-reality video game or worse. Nice people and those without the time are sometimes run off Wikipedia by a core, small group of persistent POV-pushing editors who have plenty of time to wiki-lawyer all day long, and often in effect overturn Wikipedia policies such as NPOV, NOR, AGF, and others because they have the power to do so, not because they are morally or ethically correct. One of the purposes of ArbCom should be to be able to rein in these kinds of abuses. Also, in some topic areas, the external dispute (such as Israel vs Palestine) means that there will be a POV battle and there needs to be a way to come close tot the ideal of NPOV through sanctions applied on extremes on both sides, not just one or the other. If you are elected to ArbCom for the next term, do you plan to take an active role in dealing with problems like this, or do you see ArbCom as more of a "Supreme Court" of Wikipedia, where you wait for appeals to be made. Ryoung122 04:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  1. I have not seen conclusive evidence that there are groups of "insider" editors on any particular subject who impose a point of view. It is up to the party or parties filing a request for sanctions, either at WP:ANI or at the ArbCom, to show at least some evidence first. I agree that ArbCom should correct any abuses, but I do not think that ArbCom should proactive look for areas where there is "article ownership". ArbCom should act only cases that have been filed. However, ArbCom can take an active role in dealing with disruptive editing after the problem has been identified first by a filing and then after review of the evidence. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Candidates/Robert_McClenon/Questions&oldid=871806084"