View source for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/KrakatoaKatie/Questions


<noinclude>{{Arbitration Committee candidate/2024|1=KrakatoaKatie}}</noinclude>


==Individual questions==
<!--Please ask your individual questions here. Please note that, similar to RfA, any individual editor may ask up to 2 questions of a particular candidate and may ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked. In the event of a dispute about what constitutes a reasonable follow-up question, the Electoral Commission has the final say in resolving the dispute. -->
{{ACE questions not open notice|year=2024}}
Add your questions at the bottom of the page using the following markup:

<code><nowiki>{{ACE Question
</nowiki><br><nowiki>|Q=Your question
</nowiki><br><nowiki>|A=}}
</nowiki></code>

Use the {{para|list resume}} option to correct list numbering issues, by manually specifying the start point.

There is a limit of '''two questions''' per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

----

{{ACE Question
|Q=I think many would say the activity levels of the committee this year has been a concern. Your last 250 edits go back to February 2023. Are you sure that you can commit to the activity levels necessary to make ArbCom productive? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 00:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
|A=Yes. As I explained in my statement, I've had difficulty seeing; vision during daylight hours has been just awful. I've had two operations over the summer and need one more; it's been painful and I don't think the pain is over just yet, but I'm much improved. I've also been able to keep up with the functionary activity requirements, though my CU activity hasn't been as high because that takes a different kind of attention to detail than OS does. I'll get back to regular CU work in a couple of weeks. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 00:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)}}
{{ACE Question
|Q=Thank you for standing as a candidate and for your past service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a former member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
|A=Well, I kept you in line, didn't I? ;-) (not sure if that's a success or a failure tbh) I think my favorite successes were ban appeals that needed the attention of an experienced CU. Sometimes we get things wrong, and the good-faith editors who get caught up in that need serious help. I'm glad I was there and able to assist in a few cases. Failures are legion, but the worst for me was the Fram ban, because I think we (and previous committees) could have intervened sooner on multiple occasions on multiple fronts, and that's all I'll say about that. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 00:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{ACE Question
|Q=Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= I'm optimistic because the WMF is on sound financial ground, the servers are going to keep running for the foreseeable future (y'all, you do not want to know how bad it was 15 years ago), and we've got lots of new editors and admins to keep on keepin' on, so to speak. It's encouraging to see the new admin elections process and I'm eager to see how it works out. I'm worried, though, that while the smaller projects under the WMF umbrella are important, attention to enwiki's needs isn't always paid to the extent I feel it should be. They're not ignoring us but the shift to the affiliate structure is worrisome to me. And while I have not (yet) signed the petition to the WMF over the issue in India, I share the concerns of those who have signed, and I fear that the WMF is going to come under more pressure from more governments and outside entities who want more control and less freedom. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 00:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{ACE Question
|Q=Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 17:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
|A=I did recuse from the process which ultimately ended with Bbb23 losing his CU bit, and I did that for personal reasons. Other than that, I can't think of anything going forward that I'd recuse from. If I missed something that I recused from in my first stint on the committee, please jog my memory. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 17:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)}}
{{ACE Question
|Q=What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
|A=Up there where Kevin asked about failures? This is one of them. IIRC, we wanted to outline a procedure for private evidence in 2020 but didn't for whatever reason – probably it got buried under the deluge of stuff that comes in unexpectedly. I wish we had. It's a difficult question you've asked, because everybody has rights in a case. On one hand we need to protect the privacy of someone who genuinely feels they need it, and on the other hand we don't want to have things disappear into a star chamber-like process.<p> So let's say, off the top of my very simplistic head here, that we've got a dispute between Editor A, who wants a private case, and Editor B. In my mind, we start with reviewing the private evidence of Editor A, discussing it, and as a body come to an agreement that a private case is or is not warranted. If it's rejected, Editor A has to be allowed the choice of backing out or taking it the normal route to file. If it's accepted as a private case, then Editor B has to be allowed to see that evidence. How can Editor B pull in diffs and support from Editors C and D – how do we allow C and D to be approached? Does Arbcom do it? Does B do it? And how do we get all these people to agree to confidentiality? Do we get a simple agreement? Do we have them sign the ANPDP and put it under that umbrella? Do we have to bake it into the ToU or the UCoC, something like 'if you're a party to a private case and you disclose private evidence, it's a one-way ticket to Indef Block Land'?<p>Now, having said all that, I don't know what the current procedures are since I left the group at the end of 2021. That's all behind the curtain to me now, so I don't want to throw the current arbs under my magic privacy bus. Like I said, it's hard, but I think answering these questions is a place to start. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 20:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)}}
{{ACE Question
|Q=Recently, the [[WP:Administrator recall]], including [[WP:RRFA]], has become <s>procedural policy</s>. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 23:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 01:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
|A=I think it's too soon to tell. [[WP:LEVELI|Level I]] and [[WP:LEVELII|II]] procedures remain in place, so there's no change there at the moment. Whether the community or the committee decide to make RRFA the ''sole'' method of admin recall remains to be seen. I think it's good to have two routes for editors troubled by admin conduct, because we've seen in the past that it can be difficult to get a desysop case through when that sanction is warranted, and sometimes a case can result in a desysop when many community members feel that punishment is too harsh. OTOH, RRFA could – not saying it will, definitely not saying it should, but ''could'' – turn into an example of a joke some people make about [[grand jury|grand juries]] here in the United States, which is that even a semi-zealous prosecutor can convince a grand jury to [[Indictment|indict]] a ham sandwich. We've seen repeatedly at RFA that once the snowball starts rolling, it can be hard to stop, and 25 signatures isn't exactly a big chunk of the editor base. I hate to say we'll have to wait and see, but I think this election is a little too soon after the policy went into effect to answer the question with any clarity. Next year we should know a lot more. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 00:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC) }}
#:: Just for an update, the consensus at a VP discussion decided ({{dif|1258993204|diff}}) to no longer label RRFA a "policy". [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 01:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
{{ACE Question
|Q=In your answer to Q6 above you said: {{tq|...we've seen in the past that it can be difficult to get a desysop case through when that sanction is warranted, and sometimes a case can result in a desysop when many community members feel that punishment is too harsh.}} It's been quipped many times that Arbcom is 'judge, jury, and executioner'; when hearing a case do you believe that before pronouncing its verdict, sentence, or acquittal, the committee should examine the evidence more deeply, or simply as in the practice of RfC, evaluate, report, and action the consensus of the opinion of those requesting/demanding sanctions balanced with those providing arguments for mitigation? [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 13:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= Oh, we have to examine the evidence. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals|Portals]] is an example. I was a drafter on that, and I went into it having read the opening statements and the back-and-forth at /Evidence nearly sure that we were going to lose two admins and some people were going to get blocked. (Don't misunderstand me – I didn't prejudge it, it was just the feeling I had at the beginning.) It turned out to be as one-sided as anything I've seen on this site. On occasion, things are not as they seem. Everybody brings their own biases and relationships, and I feel it's Arbcom's job to wade in and figure out what actually happened. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 15:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{ACE Question
|Q=I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of [[User:HJ Mitchell/Essays/Musings|my musings]] to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively,  you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 22:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
|A=  Your stance on bylines for featured articles is a nonstarter for me, and I apologize in advance for my tone. I do not like [[WP:OWN|ownership]] at all, period, full stop. And that's what you're suggesting. This is not a newspaper and we are not journalists who work on a piece alone or with one or two other people. If we want a collaborative project, the way to get it isn't by slapping someone's name onto an FA like it's some kind of prize they've won. And let's argue about who gets the byline, by all means, because there's a shortage of things to argue about on this site. Do you need a certain number of edits to the page in order to get a byline? Who gets included in the byline if it's one of your 'small groups'? Who gets to make substantial edits to an FA with a byline, because those edits will alter the work of the byline holder? Taking credit for one's work is human nature, but I'm not here for credit, and by giving that credit you automatically put those like me into a 'lesser than' category. I'm all for the FA and GA topicons if people want to use them, but I don't want to be asked why my byline isn't on an article. If that makes me an outlier, so be it. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 01:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{ACE Question 
|Q=In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and [[WP:CPUSH]] behavior? [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 03:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= That essay was created in 2008, and though it's been expanded and revised, and though the problem definitely still exists, I think the creation of discretionary sanctions and now contentious topics has helped somewhat. The admin toolset is a little more robust to help with these editors. It's by no means perfect, but I feel that Arbcom's role is to enable admins here. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 12:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{ACE Question
|Q=What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? '''[[User:Pinguinn|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #00FFFF;"><span style="color:#000000;">Pinguinn</span></span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk: Pinguinn|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #00FFFF;"><span style="color:#000000;">🐧</span></span>]]''' 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= As I said above, I think the Fram issue should have been handled differently, and I've said all I have to say about it. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 12:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
{{ACE Question
|Q=What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 18:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= This isn't my first rodeo, so to speak, so I have a clear knowledge of what the workload is like. It's a largely reactive, not proactive, system, and you don't know what's coming your way. If there's one thing I'd like to see, and I've said this to the list before, it's some kind of CMS to keep email requests and other tasks from falling through the cracks. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 19:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC) }}
#:As a followup, do you have any plans to work towards having a content management system deployed? As I recall, once upon a time something along those lines had been planned, but never got put in place. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
#:: There's a discussion right now on the clerks list about the topic but it's in its first stages, the 'we really need to do something, here's what I think, what do you think' part. And it's really up to the WMF to pay for, so we can push (and I will, again) but it probably won't happen soon. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 20:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
{{ACE Question
|Q=Topical and somewhat urgent question: what's your view on the [[Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation]] and the RfC '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/2024_Wikipedia_blackout|here]]'''? Many thanks.
|A= As I said above, I share the concerns, because authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide; I hope the letter has the desired effect. As for the blackout, if it gains consensus, I'm fine with it, though I think it's a largely symbolic gesture that won't have a lot of real effect other than press coverage, which is what the Indian court is upset about in the first place. I have to be careful, so I'm going to leave it there. But I'm supportive. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 20:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC) }}
#:Thanks for your answer, Katie. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 21:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
{{ACE Question
|Q=If a request for another arbitrator's recusal was referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what would be your decision-making process?
|A= It would probably be some parallel to determining if I think an admin is [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]]. I don't want to leave you hanging, but it didn't come up during my first stint on the committee and it's not something I've considered in depth. I will say that, with one exception, each of the arbs I've served with are people of integrity, and absent evidence to the contrary, I would most likely believe them if they said they could participate in a case impartially. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 22:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{ACE Question
|Q=When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] ([[User talk:DanCherek|talk]]) 21:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= I think motions regarding user conduct should probably have the breakdown published, or votes where there's more than minor deviation from all support or all oppose. The votes for CU/OS appointments need to stay private. In my experience, unless there's some underlying issue where we shouldn't publish it (for legal or privacy reasons, for example),  if someone asks, we should probably tell them. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 22:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{ACE Question
|Q=There are [[special:permalink/1249723955#Members|currently]] ten active arbitrators out of a possible 15, and arbitrator activity appears to have been the cause of some matters before the Committee stalling {{ndash}} for example, motions in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 130#Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)|recent ARBPIA amendment request]] were only recently enacted almost three months after the initial referral from AE, and it [[special:permalink/1257322693#c-CaptainEek-20241111191700-CaptainEek-20241111102700|has been noted]] that an email sent to the Committee in the summer containing private evidence may have {{tq|fell by the wayside as [an] enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into}}. As someone who has served on ArbCom, is there anything that you think the community, the committee, and/or the WMF could/should do in order to (either directly or indirectly) improve arbitrator retention, and/or prevent arbitrator burnout? <span class="skin-invert" style="color:#000"><span style="">&zwj;—&zwj;</span>[[user:a smart kitten|<span style="color:purple">a&nbsp;smart kitten</span>]]<sub>[<nowiki/>[[user talk:a smart kitten|<span style="color:#c814c8">meow</span>]]]</sub></span> 13:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= A stipend would be nice and I hear [[French Polynesia]] is a lovely place to visit. ;-) In all seriousness, I'm not sure what, if anything, could be done. I think some people who haven't served in this group seriously underestimate the time required and what exactly the job is. I've seen new arbs come in thinking they're going to change the world, so to speak, and that is just not how this gig works. There are 15 people scattered around the world, in about eight different time zones, and we're all trying to get on the same page. You guys cannot imagine the email that comes in; from what I understand it's better now that they've kicked CU block appeals back to the CUs, but every January and February a bunch of annual ban appeals come in and that's a ton of email that has to go around the world until we get a net+4 to act. It can take a week or more to do that. Was I supposed to send the committee response to that guy or was, say, Eek supposed to do it? [[Imposter syndrome]] is a real thing – you don't stop feeling like you know what you're doing in the job until around this time of year, then it's time for elections again. And nothing, ''nothing'' anybody does is good enough. You get elected to this group and all of a sudden you turn into an imbecile.<p> So that describes part of the problem. In an ideal world, someone who thinks they want to be on Arbcom could shadow an arbitrator, but we can't do that. I think realistic expectations on the part of the arbs ''and'' on the part of the community are important if we're going to get to a solution on arb retention. I can tell you all that stuff up there, but unless you believe me, you're going to be disappointed and disillusioned in the middle of January when the workload has smacked you in the face. In the beginning in particular, you're going to spend an hour or more a day on committee business, not all at once, but scattered throughout the day. If you're a drafter on a case, that goes up until you get the PD done. The community has a part here too. It needs to grok that we're all humans trying our best. We're not getting paid for this, and mistakes will happen, but we'll try to fix them. Short of a salary and an annual trip to Tahiti, In the words of the [[Traveling Wilburys]], please [[Handle with Care (song)|handle us with care]]. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 16:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC) }}
#:[[The Magical Place|Tahiti is a magical place]] {{small|(I can't hear the name without making that comment but I actually wanted to say that's the best answer to a question I've read in this election). [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 20:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)}}
{{ACE Question
|Q=You were an arb in the past - 2018 to 2021. (And I'll note in passing that I have huge sympathies for the loss of your parents AND for your moving ... I'm still processing my mother's death and it's been five years since we moved and I'm still not settled in, ugh!) Which of the decisions you were active in do you think have stood the test of time, and which ones do not? What do you think you've learned from those cases and what would you do differently now if you are elected? Do you have any votes that you have come to regret? [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 14:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= Thanks very much for your kind thoughts. :-) I don't think many of them have stood the test of time. We're about to have ARBPIA5, and I was part of ARBPIA4. We've had a bunch of World War II cases to varying degrees of success. I believe the best way to think about it is that we did what we could with what was in front of us at the time, and as time passes, the situations change and our past decisions may need revision. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 16:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}}
{{ACE Question
|Q=In line with the above, what do you think you've learned from those cases and what would you do differently now if you are elected? Do you have any votes that you have come to regret? [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 14:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= I don't spend a lot of time regretting votes. I've regretted sometimes that evidence persuaded me to vote in a manner that I did not want to have to do, but that was why I was elected – to be fair and go where the evidence took me. I don't have to like it, I just have to do it. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 16:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}}
{{ACE Question
|Q=Many thanks for your answer to my Q7 in which you stated: {{tq|On occasion, things are not as they seem.[...] I feel it's Arbcom's job to wade in and figure out what actually happened.}} ARBPIA cases concern editing policy regarding contentious articles and/or the application of DS. On the other hand, much of Arbcom’s public-facing work involves claims about editor or admin behaviour. Arbcom is judge and jury, and in the case of individuals brought before it, also the executioner. You said to Q17 above: {{tq|I've regretted sometimes that evidence persuaded me to vote in a manner that I did not want to have to do...}} I'm not asking how you would have voted in hindsight in instances of your regrets, but in such a situation a conflict of conscience would you ever consider abstaining or recusing, and why you might not have done so in the past? [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 02:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= Maybe I didn't express myself well. I'm not saying that I regretted my vote itself; I'm saying that I regretted that circumstances brought us to whatever point it was that took us into the process that ended with a desysop or sanctions or bans. I'll go back to the ''Portals'' example I referred to earlier. I did not ''want'' to have to cast my vote in favor of a desysop of BrownHairedGirl, and I had no prior substantive interaction with her, NA1K, or with the Portals namespace. In that instance my regret was that BHG could or would not conduct herself in a manner that would prevent me from casting that vote, because she was understandably hurt and upset by the result and the result of ''SmallCat'' in 2023. I don't like to hurt people, but sometimes it's unavoidable. It's not a matter of conscience about the topic area or person involved; if it were, I'd certainly abstain or recuse, but that's not what I was talking about.  If that didn't answer your question with more clarity, let me know and I'll try again. ;-) <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 03:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)}}
#: Thanks for your answer [[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]. (If you prefer not to expand on this follow up question, feel free to give it a miss.) Could it also be accurate to say that sometimes a regret could be for having voted a certain way 'because the evidence persuaded [you] to vote in a manner that [you] did not want to have to do', when in hindsight you felt that the committee had in fact ''not'' 'waded in and figured out what actually happened'?  [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
#:: Mmm, I think I've said all I really have to say on the subject. Thanks for the questions, they're good ones. :-) <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 00:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
{{ACE Question
|Q=Given the current antisemitism scandal the encyclopaedia is embroiled in, do you understand the anxieties of Jewish editors and users, as well as the 15 million jews worldwide, whose safety is ultimately put at risk when Wikipedia's processes are hijacked to list resources like the ADL as unreliable in certain areas? Will you acknowledge that the encyclopaedia needs to take much firmer action on antisemitism issues at ArbCom level and has been in denial of its scale thus far? [[User:Luxofluxo|Luxofluxo]] ([[User talk:Luxofluxo|talk]]) 21:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
|A= I don't normally edit in the ARBPIA area and I have no position on the reliability or unreliability of the ADL as a source. That's a community matter that appears to be settled through more than one RFC, the last one very recent. Arbcom does not make policy in a preemptive manner, so if there's antisemitism you feel is not being addressed adequately, you're welcome to file a case. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 21:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{ACE Question 
|Q= 
There have been and will be public cases involving private evidence.  In your opinion, how should the ArbCom maximize transparency with the community in cases involving private evidence while maintaining privacy when necessary?[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 06:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |A= Please see my answer to question #5. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 21:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{ACE Question 
|Q= 
Sometimes the community is divided as to how to deal with editors who make significant content contributions but who are habitually [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] or otherwise disruptive, and who have accumulated [[User:Robert McClenon/Long Block Logs|long block logs]].  Do you think that ArbCom should occasionally hear cases focused on individual editors, and, if so, what criteria should ArbCom use in deciding whether to accept such a case?[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 06:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)|A= I've been a part of several cases focused on individual editors. For me, the standard remains as a dispute that the community is unable to solve itself through established processes. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 21:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC) }}
#{{hat|Violates [[WP:ARBPIA]]}}{{ACE Question
|Q=
There has been a recent worrying trend whereby editors have injected their political opinions into sensitive Wikipedia topics (in particular, the Israel - Palestinian conflict, although there are many others as well). Editors will bend the rules in order to ensure that their positions are established in the articles (ie deleting any unfavorable edits to pages describing their preferred parties, claiming sources such as Al Jazeera are considered trustworthy while Jerusalem Post is not etc) resulting in a growing mistrust in articles on this platform. Biased editors will also ban or threaten to ban any editors who undo their biased edits and deletions. What actions will you take to reverse this trend which, if unchecked, will permanently damage Wikipedia's reputation? (Separately, hope your eyes make a full recovery!)
|A= Please see my answer to question #19. (And thank you for your good wishes.) <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 14:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC) }}
{{hab}}
::Thanks for the response
::I think there is a bit of a difference between my question and q19's; my question is more around your view on how to determine whether editors are acting in bad faith, and what you think an appropriate response is to an editor who you believe is acting in this manner. [[User:HonestEditor51|HonestEditor51]] ([[User talk:HonestEditor51|talk]]) 18:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)