|
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
- Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
Absolutely. There is a general belief that if ArbCom takes a case, sanctions will follow. I don't believe this is (or should) be the case. Cases are meant to work as a way for the committee to evaluate a current conduct issue that the community has been unable to resolve by themselves. Sometimes it does require sanctions left and right, but sometimes nothing more than a reminder that all parties must abide by community norms might suffice.
- Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?
To your first question: I think that, in general, having independent findings of fact attached to every remedy is desirable, even if tedious in cases with a considerable amount of parties involved. To your second question, I think the answer would generally be a no: If there isn't any support within the community to topic ban someone, I doubt ArbCom would reach the conclusion to topic ban the user—with or without a finding. In general, having a finding about a user doesn't necessarily mean that a remedy sanctionning the user would follow.
- Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
I would not participate had I not read the evidence carefully, nor taken a look at the workshop. However, I doubt this would ever take place.
- "Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?
I do think that a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case can exist, however the committe should always try to evaluate how to properly interpret the policy so that a reasonable remedy can be proposed. Although I understand where you come from (most cases share copy-and-paste principles, for example), I think there is a level of thought as to (for example) which principles could be used on which cases, and how to maintain a similar wording throughout all cases to make sure the message is kept intact. I would, however, be against this becoming some sort of precedent or a source of expectations as to what would possibly be the result of a case based on previous cases; the remedy should always address the problem as if it were an isolated event, instead of being based on how the committee reacted in any given past case.
- Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
I would not call WP:5 an essay; instead, I would call it a statement of the mission of Wikipedia. It is the cornerstone of all the guidelines and policies of this website, and the base upon which our entire operative infraestructure is built. I believe that, as a result, they should always be considered when drafting what principles should be favoured in any given ArbCom case.
- Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?
WP:BLP is a very delicate policy, and one that we must enforce strictly given the real-life consecuences any BLP violation can cause. Therefore, it should receive the utmost weight when evaluating which principles, findings and decisions are to be proposed. I think it would be the most important policy to keep in mind, even above WP:IAR.
- How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?
There are many ways to define a faction. One would argue that a faction is any given group of editors who join forces to accomplish a specific goal. Under this premise, we can say that a group of editors working to improve weather articles can be named a faction. There is another definition of faction: a group of editors that join forces to make consensus go their way. Since we are talking about behavioural issues, the second definition is the one that is of great concern to Wikipedia. I don't think that factions are an intrinsic problem, nor that our policies are insufficient. I think thet problem is how do we manage consensus, and how unefficient this management becomes when extremely contentious disputes arise. I believe that the committe should always evaluate the behaviour of every user involved separately, and take any required action individually. Deciding that an entire faction is at fault would give the upper hand to the other faction, and taking sides on a dispute is not something the committe should ever do. A better solution would be to impose discretionary sanctions and allow the community to do the rest. Thank you. Collect (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you had never heard the name of the user in question, how would you comment in this case? My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
It's difficult to imagine that I've never heard the name of the user given that I was the one clerking that case, but I generally agree with the consensus reached at the Enforcement page. My understanding of the remedy is that it's designed so that Andy cannot add Infoboxes to articles (therefore avoiding the issues resulting from this action), but this didn't make clear reference to the Infobox template. Since another user already attempted to add an infobox (albeit without using the template), what Andy did was modify the already existing infobox to use the appropriate template. I don't find that a clear violation of his restriction, nor an action that requires a sanction.
- Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?
There is certainly a problem with civility on Wikipedia, and one that has no easy solution. Enforcing a civility standard won't be an easy task if you try to approach the issue using general rules of behaviour. What we can do is evaluate (case by case) if a pattern of incivility exists, and build an appropirate way to deal with that specific instance of misbehaviour. If we find another case with the same pattern, we apply the same procedure. We have to adapt how do we approach every case of incivility, and deal with it accordingly. Blocking people left and right because we think they were uncivil is not the best solution; sometimes a block might be warranted, sometimes not. The reason why (I think) it has to be approached using this method instead of how we enforce NPOV, for example, is because we are dealing with human behaviour. Every user reacts in a different way. Some users would stop being uncivil with a short block while other would only become more uncivil after the block expires. So at the end, yes: I believe we have to enforce civility, but in a smart way.
- Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?
I am aware that some people consider it as a problem, yes. However, I don't think it's a significant problem, and I believe that solving it might be out of our hands. Editors work on areas they are interested in, and we cannot force them to edit other topics. This means that we will always have topics with little or no coverage on Wikipedia. We can try and increase the number of female editors, but we don't know what topics they might find themselves editing. I don't think that the committee can do anything beyond dealing with conduct issues related to the topic.
Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Everyking[edit]
- How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've always vouched for transparency, and although there is room for improvement, I do think the committe does a rather decent job with regards to how they decide the cases, and how much discussion is held on-wiki before any remedies are imposed. There will always be, however, information that would need to stay private. I believe that a caution filter has to be in place not only to protect the personal information of the parties involved, but their integrity. So, I don't think I could make a pledge mostly because I don't yet know with certainty what information ArbCom handles, and which part of it could be evaluated or discussed in public. However, I do have a practice of expressing my views on-wiki as much as I can, and will continue to do so.
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.
- What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
I joined Wikipedia in 2008 when I discovered that anyone could edit it. I remember I created my account to make sure all my edits would be credited to me, and did a couple of edits here and there until I became fully active in September 2011. It was then when I realized I could make a difference by improving the quality of articles I was interested in. I used to edit every day, usually preparing articles or lists for featured status. What I currently do is a mix between taking on administrative tasks, clerking, and so on. I do still create content here and there, but not as much as before.
- What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?
Most of the things I do on this project are based upon achieving consensus. Be it managing featured list candidacies, or evaluating proposals at the IEG committee, for example. There will always be someone with a different opinion or philosophy than yours, which is a good thing. Being able to understand their position is important to establish a proper discussion and thus, reach consensus. Part of what I've learned is that, and that it is not a bad thing if consensus is against you, as long as you understand why and be prepared to work effectively with those who had an opposite point of view.
- Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?
As a clerk, I am very familiar with the handling of cases, and the amount of problems that arise during a case. I believe that some disputes are more complex than others, and in that regard I think working around the usual deadlines to accomodate, in reality, how much time it's going to take to reach a solution would be a good idea (without extending them too much, of course). I generally like the infraestructure used to handle cases; however, I think that crafting a proposed decision on the workshop with the involved parties (as recently done in one case) would be a good idea to speed up the process of reaching a closure instead of just coming up with a proposed decision a week later without using the Workshop at all. This way, all parties will feel involved, and will see the pace of progress instead of experiencing a void between the end of the evidence phase and the proposed decision deadline.
- Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?
I think the problem is how you behave. Both experts and general editors are welcomed as long as they abide to our community norms, and most of the ArbCom cases involving conflicts between them have taken place precisely because either one or both of them have failed to do so. I can tell you, as a subject expert myself, that following community norms is the best way to avoid conflicts.
- In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?
I do believe that we could have a community-driven desysopping process. The Spanish Wikipedia has one, and it works for them. The only problem I can foresee is how toxic having such a process would be. If RfA is quite toxic to handle the tools, imagine how toxic a process to remove the tools from an administrator with years of service would be. Maybe if we find a way to create a process that avoids this inconvenience, it could work, but under our current situation I think that the best way would be to create a new mini-case process where ArbCom deals with a desysopping request from the community: it hears what the community has to say, evaluates the evidence and issues a motion to desysop or admonish the administrator without the need to open a full case for it.
- Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
I am not afraid by any kind of harassment (either on- or off-wiki) and I won't allow it to affect my ability to serve as an arbitrator. I don't remember being harassed before, but my geographical location (among other things) makes harassing me quite a difficult task.
- What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?
I am very familiar with those policies, mostly because I constantly handle private information, and work on many projects beyond the English Wikipedia. My opinion with regards as to how we handle private information is that there is still room for improvement. The new privacy policy is way much better than the previous one, but there are still some rough edges here and there. There are still several standards we have to meet before we can call our system a soild one.
- The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?
Arbitration should handle only the disputes that the community has not been able to solve. Currently, it also handles community-imposed bans, administrator misconduct/misuse, child protection, and more. So here is what I think: Child protection should be handled strictly by the WMF; Auditing of CU/OS rights should be moved to a separate entity; and community-imposed bans and isolated cases of administrator misconduct should be handled by the community. The Spanish Wikipedia has a community-drive desysopping process that has worked for them and has not been abused; I don't think why we cannot have a similar process here. With those changes, ArbCom would only deal with anything related to the cases they take on. This would improve efficiency all over the place.
Thank you. Rschen7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?
Yes. The reliable source criteria is not part of ArbCom's remit, but refusal to follow it becomes a conduct issue, which does fall inside ArbCom's remit. At first, it can be handled by the community, but if things escalate, certainly ArbCom would have to take a look at it.
- When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?
Impossible. You don't need to have a personal opinion about the content that caused the dispute, but you certainly have to verify the content to understand the conduct that stemmed from it. Otherwise, you will be unable to come up with accurate remedies to fix the problem.
- How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?
I think that this behaviour (removing some but not all of the conclusions of sources because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions) is quite problematic, fails WP:NPOV, and is something that would need to be handled at Arbitration if community attempts to deal with it have failed.
- If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?
Such an action would not only evidence the editor's inherent conflict of interest, but will also evidence their lack of knowledge about what a reliable source is. So, yes, I'd expect other editors to refer to those examples when evaluating the editor's behaviour.
Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from SNUGGUMS[edit]
- How did you first come across Arbitration? What made you decide to first join prior to becoming an admin on the English Wikipedia??
I came across Arbitration back in November 2012. There was a big dispute regarding a user called Eric Corbett that involved a considerable amount of active users, ANI drama, and ArbCom. I followed the matter with interest, but forgot about it after that year's elections were over. Later, in January 2013, I saw the call for new clerks and decided to put my name forward. Clerking has been an amazing experience for me. I don't think I actually gave importance to the fact that I wasn't an admin when I became a clerk. I had an RfA a month later but it didn't work out, so I gave up and decided to continue writing articles.
Thank you in advance for responding. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe that competence should be a factor when making arbitration decisions? That is, should the expertise (or lack thereof) of a party to an arbitration case be a factor when deciding an arbitration case of Randy versus an expert?
The first link, WP:COMPETENCE, talks about the ability to edit Wikipedia collaboratively, understanding our norms and inner workings. Arbitration is all about conduct, not about who knows more about any given topic. For example, I've worked as a video game journalist for some time in the past, and I hold a significant knowledge with regards to that topic area. However, that does not mean ArbCom should treat me any different than someone who likes to edit video game articles as a hobby. What matters is how we behave, and our ability to work together. This has been one of the biggest problems we've had for a long time: some experts don't understand that following Wikipeda's rules is above all the knowledge they might posess. That doesn't mean that their knowledge is not valuable or welcomed, but we can't change Wikipedia to suit them.
- If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?
2014 was much lighter than 2013, so I'd give them a B. I think their worst mistake was to accept the Media Viewer RFC case, but I understand that the pressure from the community was just too high to dispel. I don't find anything in 2014 that i'd call a great success from the committe given how little took place in comparison with 2013, but I'd like to point out that being willing to take mor cases about administrator misconduct is something i'm pleased with.
- The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?
My recommendation would be (as I answered somewhere) to use the Workshop page to create the proposed decision. 6 weeks is a long time, and I'd vouch for a change to handle cases in 4 weeks instead. However, this would not be possible without moving BASC away from ArbCom.
- If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
This is a hard question. I'll leave this one for later, since I have to sit and think about it.
- Leaving aside the obligatory life story, your candidacy boils down to bringing a neutral voice and fresh ideas to the committee. Explain how you are more neutral (or they are less neutral) than whatever you are using as a comparison and how in practice a lone voice can introduce fresh ideas.
I think that as sort of an outsider to how the committee handles matters, I can evaluate anything in a neutral way. Indeed, I've been a clerk for the past two years, but being a clerk and an arbitrator are two different things. A lone voice can always introduce new ideas; the hard part is to get such ideas adopted. However, I believe that any good idea will always be adopted if it proves to be more efficient than whatever procedure/formula is being used.
- Without naming names, what skills or qualities do you have that are unique, that might not be present in the current Arbs or candidates? What makes you stand out?
- Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?
I expect most of my work to be focused on handling cases. I think that there is a need to speed up the process and I'll do my best to make this happen. I'll also work on taking BASC out of ArbCom.
- What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?
I have worked on many areas. I began as a content editor, then moved to work on more tech-focused stuff, then moved to clerking and grants. I believe that the experience I've gathered from all of these areas allows me to take a look at conduct issues from different angles, and maybe bring better solutions to tackle these disputes.
- Hi Hahc21. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?
I have a though skin, and don't fall to provokations easily. I have been through a lot since I began editing, so nothing that would happen to me while sitting as an arb would be new to me. I also commented above that my geographical location is a great advantage I have; I'm sure nobody would be able to call me home, knock my door, or affect my personal life in any possible way.
- We had a chat and you asked my advice on whether you should run, I'll explain my reasoning for suggesting you didn't when I get round to writing a voter guide. That said, what persuaded you to run?
I felt that we needed more candidates and I believe that I have the requirements to serve on the Committee. ArbCom would certainly not be the first committee I work in, and I believe nothing the committee handles would be new to me, apart from the internal procedures arbs are used to. Of course, the final decision on whether I'm suitable is in the hands of the community.
- Thanks for taking the time to answer Hahc21. I do wish you the best of luck. WormTT(talk) 09:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!
I think most of is already done by the arbs, albeit with some differences. I don't see why it couldn't be adopted, either as-is or with some tweaks.
- Your candidacy statement presents you as a content writer, well over 18. I have questions on both. Please explain: 1) the picture of a very young person on your user page; and 2) the content problems I raised here and here. Specifically, 1) do you believe your featured content is up to standard, and 2) you passed a DYK that contained copyvio. I did not start a Copyright Contributor Investigation on Diva because you were going to follow up: did you? Also, as a candidate, do you still believe this approach to the arb election rules is justified?
The young-looking person in my user page is me. Given that I've been verified to the Foundation since 2012, I find it intriguing that anyone would doubt I am over 18. Yes, I believe that my vast list of featured content is up to standard; the concerns brought at the second link you provided relate to content i) not written by me; and ii) which I mistakenly overlooked and later did my best to fix. I think that using that example to refer to my work as a content editor is misleading and inaccurate. I did work with Diva w.r.t his copyvios, but we later parted ways and haven't seen him for a while. I don't think my guide to guides was in violation to any of the rules, and the discussion that took place at that moment favoured that position as long as I didnt place it in the template, which I didn't do. As an arb candidate, I don't find any problem with such an approach.
- Looking at one of your best contributions, I noticed San Antonio de la Eminencia castle, a GA which you wanted to bring to FA as well. Reading through the article, I don't quite get why it ever was promoted to GA. More worrying for a potential ArbCom member are the copyright violations though. On Talk:San Antonio de la Eminencia castle, these were partially discussed. But looking at the article and the sources, I note your very first line "San Antonio de la Eminencia castle is a colonial castle built in the seventeenth century by the Spanish monarchy in Cumaná, Venezuela, to protect the city from the constant raids by English, French and Spanish pirates." and the original (from an unreliable source, but that's another problem) "El Castillo de San Antonio de la Eminencia es una fortificación construida en el siglo XVII en la ciudad de Cumaná (estado Sucre), con la intención de proteger la ciudad de las constantes incursiones de los corsarios ingleses, franceses y españoles." The article is filled with incorrect information ("Built in coral stone, its walls are 2-foot (0.61 m) thick."? No, they are 2 metres think) and original research like "Originally titled Careacus (derived from the taín word Careacuro, which means "Caribbean")" (check Carriacou for the correct etymology). But the mai nreason why I deleted the article as a copyright violation is that very large parts of the body of the article are near-complete translations of [1] (original source no longer available), including basic errors like translationg "silleria" as "stalls" (in the context of this article, it should have been "masonry" or something similar). Considering that copyright concerns had been raised on the talk page, and that you responded first with "Yeah. I'm working on it :) " and last with "The conclusion is that, yes, the works written there are copyrighted, although I'm not sure how old the books are to verify their copyright status, and I cba to do all of that just to avoid modifying the text, which I already did :) ". Why did you, even after these concerns had been raised and you had acknowledged that the sources were copyrighted, not follow this up to avoid all appearances of copyright violation? You follow the order, the contents, and most of the words of the source word by word, step by step, simply omitting a sentence here and making a minor adjustment there. That is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement, as a thrice-RFA candidate, now ArbCom-candidate, and multiple GA- and FA-writer should know. Is this a very unhappy exception, or should we go through your other contributions as well?
I had an issue with translating sources when I was working on the castle articles. It was a new topic to me and paraphrasing was extremely difficult, given that I was not knowledgeable about which english terms were to be used. Several of these articles were checked, some were demoted and reworked/copyedited by several experienced editors who work on the topic. However, I still believed that I was unable to paraphrase the sources, and so I topped working on these articles. Yes, the castle articles were a very unhappy exception, and I was extremely embarrased about it mostly because I felt I was unable to fix it alone. You can go through all my other contributions if you want; the only ones with issues were those you already mentioned.
- On 01:04, 4 November 2014 you deleted The 1989 World Tour (created 14:49, 3 November 2014) as an A10 duplicate of 1989 World Tour (created 00:20, 4 November 2014). On 01:05, 4 November 2014, i.e. one minute after your deletion, you moved 1989 World Tour to The 1989 World Tour. The same minute, you fully and indefinitely move-protected (i.e. admin-only) that page, because of "Move warring" (protection log entry). Why did you A10 delete the older article (instead of simply merging them, or deleting the newer one which is more logical in the case of A10), and more importantly why did you fully protect an article against moves because of "move-warring", when AFAICT the only move that had happened was made by you?
- Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.
I'll answer some random ones. I might answer more later. (i)Real life intervenes while you are halfway through voting on a case and you don't know when you will be able to continue. I'd prefer to let my colleages know that I might not be able to continue voting, and that they should not wait for me if I'm not back in time. I don't think that delaying the closure of a case is good under any circumstance. (ii)Parties to a case you are drafting prove to be incapable of submitting adequate evidence. Now this is a difficult question. I think that I would try to go and hunt as much evidence as possible by myself to try and come with a reasonable decision that actually deals with the problem. I could maybe ask other involved editors individually to try and submit evidence. (iii)You disagree with an action taken by a clerk and tensions rise as a result. I think dealing with such a disagreement in a polite way is the best solution. This is an interesting question because I found myself in this position roughly nine months ago, and although I understood why an arbitrator disagreed with the action I took, I felt the way they approached me about the matter was inappropriate. (iv)Voting on a remedy to ban someone is deadlocked and you have the casting vote. I don't think I would support a ban remedy in such a situation. I would oppose it and ask my colleages to explore a more feasible solution in which we could all (or most) agree.
- Why do you want to be a member of member of ArbCom? What do you hope to accomplish?
I think it's safe to say that noone would like to be a member of ArbCom. I consider it's just a job somebody must do, and I accepted the challenge to put myself forward as a candidate. I did it because I felt somebody had to, and I had the experience for the job. I hope to accomplish a change; it has been said that ArbCom needs to make some changes to the way things are currently handled, and I'm in to make those changes happen.
- Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?
- One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?
- I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?
|
