Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kudpung/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Question from Irondome

2. I am glad to see you are running Chris. One question. If elected, how seriously would you take into account WP:IAR when dealing with cases? Irondome (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

   Ignoring all rues is something we all do at our peril. As an admin for example, one has to be extremely careful because there are people out there lurking in the shadows just waiting for any chance to have a go at an admin and then tar all admins with the same brush just for doing the right thing. IAR is such a short, concise policy (perhaps the shortest) that we can even reproduce it here: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (bold text is in the original). It means what it says, but in the context of the Arbcom, no outcomes are reached by one member alone, so there would have to be a pretty good consensus among the committee members to close a case based on a rationale that is generally in conflict with a policy or guideline. That said, although the policy says ' all rules', there are some rules that cannot possibly be disregarded under any circumstances.

Question from Yash!

2. In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred? Yash! 12:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   In my nomination I stated that I do not follow all Arbcom cases. I believe the ones I watched were adequately concluded if perhaps in some cases IMO the sanctions were possibly too lenient, but it would not be correct for me to mention here which ones they were in case they come up again if I happen to be a sitting arbitrator. If it was something I would have handled differently then I would handle a similar future case differently.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

Thank you for stepping forward!

2. Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?

   There has been far, far too much kerfuffle over infoboxes. I have no strong opinion on infoboxes. They were around before I joined Wikipedia so I include them in articles I create and I update them on articles that already have one. With the possible response that perhaps some articles benefit from infoboxes while for the reader experience on some kinds of articles infoboxes might simply be a distraction, I would recuse myself from voting on or closing an RfC to have one on a specific article or specific genre of articles. FWIW I think the infobox looks good on the GA Malvern I wrote, and IMO the FA Edward Elgar that I did the peer review for looks good without one. Take your pick - a quick check looks to me as if many of the articles on classical composers don't have one, but some do, so there appears not to be a hard and fast rule. I'm not a fan of opera, and if you are looking for an opinion on how you voted on the Joseph issue, this is not the place to ask it.

   Excuse me for asking, I would like how you evaluate a consensus, this is just an example, but not any example because the arb findings which have to be applied are quoted in a comment.

4. An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ("not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."

   It's not absolutely clear to me either what you are asking here, Gerda. In any case I cannot comment on what Floquenbeam or Yunshui might have done. As you know, I lived in Germany for nearly 20 years but I don't recall Kafka having much to say over feminism; in fact I don't remember the opening of Die Verwandlung at all except it had something about a bloke who turned into a beetle or something. You are familar with my work, I am not an ungeheures Ungeziefer - if you want me on the committee just vote 'yes' and if you don't, just vote 'no'.

I would like you to have a look at my suggestions to make AE a bit more bearable, link supplied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

2. 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?

   Obviously a case can be opened without sanctions being necessary. Just as a defendant in a court of law can be aquitted, or even let off as having no substantial case to answer. There are also cases the community has to debate that are not concerned with behavioural issues.

4. If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?

   I don't think that makes an admin necessarily involved. But your question lacks context.

6. Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?

   If the case is brought at a time when the user is known to be reasonably active, no. If a case is brought weeks or months after the event and the editor in question has not edited for many days, still no obligation but a stay of execution may be appropriate, and if I rightly recall, that is what they have done in the past. Otherwise, hear the case in absentia. That said however, the committee would probably vote on what to do. 1000 words: That depends if the five others are all saying basically the same thing or whether each editor is referring to something completely different, in which case 1000 words for each one would probably be appropriate.

Questions from Leaky

2. The community at large voting for a new Arbcom member will wish to know what a candidate means by the frequent use of the term "anti-admin brigade" [1]

   They won't, but for your benefit although you already know the answer, it refers loosly to an non-cohesive but recognisable archetype of editors who frequently make disparaging remarks about admins and/or adminship in general. In a nutshell, they tend to tar all all sysops with the same brush.

4. As an Arbitrator, would the strength of your personal feelings as expressed here [2] present a conflict of interest for you?

   I don't see the connection, certainly with some old issue from well over 3 years ago and WP:COI is thataway. Are you afraid to go to meetups in case I will be there?

   Resp: Certainly not. I have never given cause for anyone to throw their food or beer at me. Leaky Caldron 13:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

6. In relation to your answer No.1 Biblioworm you rely in part on your experience as an educationalist to support your dispute resolution attributes. Would you say you were more like Wackford Squeers, Mr Chips or Douglas Hector in the History Boys?

   The question is irrelevant to this election, the choice is limited, and to ask for and presuppose a comparision with those three particular characters is in and of itself a personal attack. However, as you have a clearly declared perspective towards sysops and the Arbitration Committee, you do get a reply: I suppose one could say in a very vague way that there is 35% more like Chips actually, but as the hundreds of Wikipedians who have met me know,in spite of my advanced years and very traditional British private school upbringing, I am a very dynamic member of any group large or small, hold some very modern views (my children range in age from 4 to 46) and I have a genuine, warm, and spontaneous sense of humour that can often defuse the most delicate of situations even to the extent of saving embarrassment for others who may have committed some social or professional faux pas. That said, if the circumstances demand it and the best and most appropriate punishment is to make someone look silly and feel deeply ashamed, like a magistrate from his bench I will not hesitate to read the riot act as an admonishment rather than apply sanctions, and I can also do it very, very effectively. It works, and some of the naughtiest kids I ever taught and remonstrated with in school and college proudly send me photos of their children and grandchildren and cards at Christmas.
   If you have read my nomination statement, I'm sure you will understand and will be able to rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin.

   Please repair the damage you have done to the format of this page, and remove your arrogant demand from the answer box. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

   Not for the first time Kudpung, you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. The "arrogant demand" is created by the markup syntax we are required to use when placing questions for candidates. Maybe someone with greater technical knowledge than me can sort out the "damage"? There is an existing discussion elsewhere regarding the candidate markup issues. As for your message on my talk page, forget it. I know the answer. By the way, I am responding here in continued obedience to your talk page ban you dished out because I annoyed you a couple of years ago - as you do with anyone who disagrees with you and your view of WP:RFA. Continually describing those with whom you disgree as a "brigade" and "trolls" doesn't sound like a balanced viewpoint. It comes across, as others have commented, verging on a breach of WP:NPA. Leaky Caldron 10:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    Fixed Kudpung, this wasn't Leaky's fault. I went ahead and repaired the formatting.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

8. In relation to your detailed reply to #3 above, if, on the rare occasion, the most appropriate punishment is to make someone look silly and feel deeply ashamed turns out to be a mistake on you part because you have jumped to the wrong conclusion do you (a) offer a fulsome, genuine personal apology, (b) give a grudging non-apology, apology, (c) ignore your error and expect it to be forgotten? This is relevant to your candidature for senior office here as it is important to understand the suitability (as far is it is possible using this medium) of a candidate who believe that they possess the qualities necessary such as, for example demonstrating objectivity and respect when dealing with the parties and refraining from taking sides before they has heard all the facts.

   If you have read my nomination statement, I'm sure you will understand and will be able to rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin.

10. That previous answer does not answer my question. It audaciously avoids the question. You made a mistake, made a completely false accusation, were corrected by another member of the community and let it go at that. The question did not require restatement of your well established position on those you regard as non-essential to the project, namely anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context. We all know your mantra. Cards on the table Kudpung, I will oppose your candidacy for senior office regardless of your answers here. My questions are nevertheless aimed at driving out responses, so others might judge your suitability. In you latest rail against an editor (we are all, I hope, regarded as editors) you have dismissed them from your talk page with a disparaging message and edit summary. You do this far more than any other editor I am aware of. You dismiss, seemingly without effort and with apparent contempt any question that appears to challenge you, your WP beliefs or your Admin. position, describing as “near PA”, “trolls”, “Anti-Admin brigade” without any clear justification. The world of Wikipedia is not against you, yet you behave towards individuals and nameless groups in a manner that suggests you are threatened. No doubt you will again class this question as a “veiled personal attack”.

    You are no shrinking violet when it comes to dishing it out, e.g. “don't be surprised if your block log continues to grow”. Is that really called for? Surely the community expects officers to dispense justice not simply laden with threats? I mean, what is this all about “if the vile PA at me on my question page at the election continues, accusing me of mysoginy and pederasty”? How, exactly do you associate such an accusation with any question on this page?

    This behavior is worrying and whether you like it or not, this is the place to establish your Arbom credentials. So the questions are: “Why do you fight perceived fire with real fire” and “In what way is that an appropriate behavior for a senior elected office holder”?

    If you have read my nomination statement, I'm sure you will understand and will be able to rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin.

12. On some pages that I have on my watchlist you have repeated your irritation at some of the questions / questioners here and have said that you would consider withdrawing from the process during, or even after, the election. You have also not answered some questions, instead referring several times to your nomination statement - which does not really provide a answer to the direct question. Obviously that is your prerogative and no one is ever forced to answer a question they are not comfortable with. On the whole though, how committed are you to going through with this, and when successful, sitting for a full term?

    My nomination statement has already officially answered the question concerning my committment. As far as the conversations you have stalked on users' talk pages, we'll let the voters decide on the context in which they were made, and we'll wait for the election results shall we?.

14. I hold out little hope of a sensible answer to this, several questions having been given short shrift or totally blanked. You have apparently blocked 770 editors. The stats on bans from your TP are not available, but may total in the hundreds as well. My question is, would you participate in a case involving any of these editors? If not, is there anyone left for you to arbitrate on? Finally, rather than waste another chunk of markup, one of your chief supporters believes "that the Arbcom election process is a higher standard of scrutiny than a standard RfA" Do you agree?

    As an active admin for 5 years, the number of blocks I have made compared to others is actually quite low. The 770 blocks with the exception of maybe half a dozen, were all vandals, school blocks, enacting community decisions, or blatant cases of using Wikipedia to promote a product, person, or service. I have had one block queried, one had the rationale slightly modified, and as far as I can recall, none were overturned. With the exception of vandals on a rampage, I'm not especially quick on the trigger and I don't recall being among the dozen or so different admins who have blocked you, for example. (Sincere apologies, Leaky Cauldron appears to have a clean block log. Thee comment was certainly meant for someone else). 1,494 editors have commented on my talk page since 2011 (earlier stats are not available) and I have asked 6 to refrain from posting there. You know who one of them is. I would participate in an Arbcom case involving them, but unlike some editors, I am perfectly capable of an unbiased approach; having asked such people to stay off my talk page does not necessarily make me involved in whatever it was that brought them before the committee. Finally, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on the value of RfA vs ACE. The two elections have absolutly nothing in common, nor are the (s)election processes for similar functions. Thank you for all your questions,but I won't be answering any more.

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Subcommittees

2. The Audit Subcommittee was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our Check Users and Oversighters. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle it. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the functionaries en banc, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   I have no opinion on this. I would probably do nothing.

4. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   I have explained on an RfC somewhere that I think BASC should be devolved to the community, especially taken over by the UTRS which already exists. If elected to Arbcom, if needed, I will of course adjudicate on ban and block appeals. There remains one proviso: Appeals for bans and blocks imposed by the committee should be heard by the committee but without the need for a dedicated sub committee; perhaps however with a reduced quorum of members.

Current Disputes and Cases

2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?

   I don't have any 'standards' per se. All such cases whether they are handled individually by admins, or through ANI, or through Arbcom need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. This does not mean however that we as a community should be more lenient with admins or with prolific content creators.

4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way. 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?

   Short answer: None. Long answer: I do not believe it absolutely necessary for me to bring new solutions to the table in order to be considered for a seat on the Committee. From what I've seen of Arbcom cases (and I certainly do not watch them all), nearly every case does not involve violations of our civility policy. In fact this is the area where both the community and the Committee are most lax, and because it is, it's the one that gets most exploited with impunity. Some editors deliberately use incivility as a communication tool for effect, others just can't behave themselves if they try; both will ultimately drive other users away from Wikipedia.. Theoretically, the broad community is capable of proposing solutions even if traditionally they persistently throw their own babies out with their bath water.

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

   With your question regarding Wifione, it looks as if you are only looking for support for the part you played as an arbitrator. That said, of course admins should be held to higher standards. If a common or garden editor would be blocked or banned for an offence, so should a sysop. This is not the army where if disciplined you only get busted down one rank, or if a detective, get sent back to uniform branch to direct the traffic. Admins are on even footing, they just have some extra tools in the very powerful web editing toolbox every registered user already has.

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

   Yes. Or: 'Why does everyone think every ANI or an Arbcom case has to end in in a block, a ban, or a desysoping?' I think a slap on the wrist is excellent, but only if appropriate. It should not be used in lieu of harsher sanctions just because the offender is an admin or a prolific content provider.

Insider Baseball

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

   Wikipedia is an international project and I do not understand the American expression - we do not play baseball in England. As for workshop pages, yes, if they can be kept clear of the peanut gallery and those uninvolved editors who regularly trawl around at every Arbcom case and all the other drama boards trying to sound important.

Baseball_in_England Marteau (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Marteau, but this is not the venue to use your hammer for splitting hairs.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung If he had said something like "We do not play sitar in England" would you have complained about my correcting his misstatement? Would you not perceive that as dismissive (and perhaps indicating contempt) of sitar players? Some of us take baseball seriously, and where it occurs around the world is of interest to some of us, and when it is blithely and cheerfully dismissed in such a manner, a brief correction is completely appropriate. Furthermore, words have meaning, and his little show of off-the-cuff contempt for the baseball players of England, as a misstatement and as demonstrably incorrect and misleading, demonstrates his editorial style and commenting style, making my brief correction completely appropriate her considering this forum is intended to put the candidate under the proverbial microscope.Marteau (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Update: user:Marteau was put under the proverbial micrpscope and indef blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Smallbones

2. Wikipedia is starting to have a reputation for bullying and misogyny, see, e.g the recent article in The Atlantic by Emma Paling, "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women”.
   Are you willing to take serious steps to stop bullying of editors on Wikipedia? especially bullying directed toward women editors? Is this one of your top 2 priorities? What would you consider to be a more important priority than stopping the bullying? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   Is it?. [citation needed] - I see the Atlantic article as only one source, and that particular case was highly controversial I believe that is an issue for the broader community to take the initiative on . Arbcom as far as I understand, exists to enforce policy rather than to create it, but if any such cases are brought to the committee you can rest assured they will receive the same attention from me as all the others. Thus you leave me confused with respect to priorities. Do you mean priorities on Wikipedia? Do you mean priorities on Arbcom? Do you mean my priorities as a content provider? Do you mean my priorities in real life? Well the answer is that that the Western world's modern and increasing preoccupation with those two major controversial social issues: LGBT (there are plenty of people my age who don't even know what the acronym means) and Feminism have never really caught up with me. I straddle two radically different eras of society and I recall the words of one friend (sadly now passed away at a grand old age) who was a magistrate in a country I lived in: "I used to have to put gays behind bars; now I have to marry them".
   
   I've followed some of those contentious Arbcom cases about women being harassed here, but even as an active front-line admin, I haven't come across any cases at, say, ANI, but maybe I was on a Wikileave when they came up. Any case is of course a case too many and must be dealt with quickly and severely but I do think the external sources you cite are journalistic` sensationalism and in terms of the number of incidents make the situation sound far more frequent than it is.No, m top 2 priorities do not include bullying or feminism because I am not radical enough to go on the streets and demonstrate for them. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, and that's all we should be concerned with here, my two top priorities are 1) bridging the enormous and ever widening gap between the community and the WMF, and 2) researching for better ways of controlling the quality of the content and controlling those who control it.
   Wikipedia is a workplace and not club where we gather after work to lay schemes to put the world to rights. I hope I can avoid being taken out of context here and being branded as a misogynist (of whom we do have some very clear examples and who are allowed to roam Wikipedia with impunity). It was bad enough on my RfA where one young lady took me completely out of context, bluntly branded me as a child hater, and caused a massive pile-on only to slink away and retire from the project.

4. Citations provided
   Wikipedia Has a Misogyny Problem,
   Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words),
   Wikipedia is amazing. But it’s become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess,
   Kansas City Edit-A-Thon Aims To Close Gender Gap On Wikipedia,
   Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia.
   This type of article is easy enough to find. Is it possible that you were just ignorant of the problem? Or are you saying that you don't wish to enforce WP:Harassment and WP:Civility when this type of problem comes before ArbCom?

   That's a crap question and a borderline veiled PA. It should be removed. Do you think I'm running in this election for a joke or something? It's poor form, if you identify as female, to accuse us males as being misogynist just because we don't chain ourselves to the railings in support of your cause.

Question from Biblioworm

2. Do you have any experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?

   Yes. With over 40 years of student and classroom management, many years as a business owner, and children who are now in their mid 40s, and 5 years as a front line admin, it would be strange if I didn't.

Questions from Antony–22

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?

   All questions are optional. Enforcing civilty would help to foster a more collegial collaboration. Whether it harms or helps free speech, your question is inviting any answer which you could choose to be the wrong one. That said, Wikpiedia is not Hyde Park and we have a job to do here: create articles with accurate content and keep people away from from Wikipedia who use it as a platform for their own opinions and propaganda. Are you related to the press?

4. It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing. What is the line between incivility and harassment? How much does incivility, when it doesn't cross the line into harassment, affect our ability to retain editors, including but not limited to its effects on the gender gap?

   All questions are optional. 'It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing.' - Are you asking this question because you don't know? The answers are here and here. Both will, and do, lose editors for us and any gender can dish them out or be on the receiving end (I'm sure diffs are available and probably even within some former Arbcom cases).

6. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles? For example, do you think that releasing statements, such as been done once on a previous case, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they be made more effective?

   All questions are optional. I don't think it's within the mandate of Arbcom to educate anyone at all. I've offered my services (through election) to the Committee to adjudicate on internal issues concerning our editors. Are you related to the press?

8. This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press, of no more than a few paragraphs, on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. Do not cover or express an opinion on the proposed or actual decision, but concentrate on how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.

   All questions are optional. I do not intend to be a spokesperson for Arbcom. Nor do I believe the Committee needs one. Arbcom is not a local police force whose ACC goes on telly to report on the progress of a murder investigation. Are you related to the Press?

10. One last question. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals from academic and cultural institutions. This is perhaps causing some angst that the community and its interactions may become "professionalized" to the exclusion of established editors. Do you feel this fear is warranted? How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

    You said 'one last question - that is two. ...many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. - this, as I interpret it, is a very negative, perhaps an even dangerously incorrect two-part assumption about Wikipedia - the kind of thing I imagine gets bandied about on Wikipediocracy. In the absence of concrete evidence of your claim I would have to decline any comment. Without a link to the official statistics that demonstrate that there has indeed been increasing participation by professionals from academic and cultural institutions, I cannot comment either; whether it is causing 'angst' is therefore possibly pure conjecture, so as far as how I feel, I don't feel anything. If such a topic ever came to Arbcom - and I don't see for the moment how it might - my vote for any action or a remedy would of course be based on my understanding of the evidence and the opinions of other Committee members.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

2. Is Terms of Use a policy  ? Do you believe that ArbCom can sanction undisclosed paid editors if there is evidence that they violated TOU ?

   All questions are optional. Terms of Use is a Foundation policy, it says so in the Wikimedia text. Because it is not on a Wkipedia page, if you want to check, here is a link. Their making has nothing to do with us because we are not allowed to be anymore part of that process than we are of the top-down imposition of software solutions. This does mean however, that the Foundation simply hosts the content and that editorial control of en.Wiki is in the hands of our community, its functionaries, admins and committees. We can therefore enforce them locally in so far as actions by users are offending the policy of the ToU, and any related policies or principles implemented through consensus by the local community.
   If issues concerning undisclosed paid editors are brought to the committee, the evidence will be carefully examined and if there is a case to answer, an appropriate sanction will be pronounced by the committee. If I happen to be a member of that committee, I will vote for or against sanctions based on the strength of the evidence, the comments of other involved editors, and the discussion among the committee members.

Question from Pldx1

2. Dear candidate. As you probably have noted, an user describing himself as a Grammar Badguy asked the question he asked to the 11 first nominated candidates. In my opinion, the way each candidate answered this question is an important criteria of choice. Since you were not one of the 11, I think it could be fair to give you an occasion to comment. Pldx1 (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

   Sorry Pldx1, but I don't see any questions posed by a Grammar BadGuy. Can you send me on another 20-minute wild-goose chase?
   Well, (some hours later) Its been pointed out (by a friend) who this mysterious questioner most likely is, so as you have to all intents and purposes borrowed his their question, and although I wouldn't normally give someone with such a user name the time of day, I'll simply borrow another candidate's answer: This question would be unlawful in a job interview in my jurisdiction, and would result in a major employment tribunal case, or worse. It is not admissible in an interview for a volunteer role either. All I choose to reveal of myself is on my user page. To which I'll simply add: The many people who have worked with me in real life on Wikipedia projects around the world might know more, but many of them are admins, Arbitrators or Foundation staff, and they are the soul of discretion.

Question from Worm That Turned

2. Hi Kudpung. I've told you before 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?

   Ha! As you can see Dave, I've had some opportunity to put in some practice on this very question page where I've been indirectly accused of being a misogynist by one and a pederast by another. Fortunately it's all simulation (on my part at least) although even simulation can be can be very, very scary. There's not many people around these days, at least on Wikipedia, who have been through Army boot camp. I have, and it's particularly more challenging for a graduate entry than it is for a born and bred squaddie. If I were elected I would be perfectly capable, indeed feel obliged, to diffuse the drama just as I had to at OTRS. Leaving the snark to the bullies and harassers is actually quite easy; they make fools of themselves in the end without my help. I've also had a lot of practice over the last five years at ANI, and I've taken some flak from some people for pushing for reform of RfA, and that RfC we recently launched together and where ironically one of the greatest pieces of PA came out of the blue from a from a former arbitrator! Some of the stuff I get in my mail box would make some people's toes curl. I never answer it.

   Thanks for answering Kudpung. I knew the answer anyway, but didn't want you to get away without the question! Worm^TT(talk) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Epipelagic

2. About a year ago, you issued some general warning guidelines to content builders, advising that if they are going to matter they need to be "those who get on quietly with adding content and who are always a pleasure to collaborate with and help, who never get blocked or warned, and who stay away from the drama boards".[3] You have frequently indicated that content builders who reflect critically on the administration system should be severely dealt with. In the same guidelines you likened core long-term content builders to "crap and vandals" that need to be kept out of the encyclopedia. In your own words, Wikipedia "has reached the top of its parabola as a serious encyclopedia. Those former great content providers have little else left to but criticise those who do the maintenance work, and they generally blunder around making a nuisance of themselves. Admins are now needed to keep the crap and vandals out of the encyclopedia." Do you feel that Wikipedia now needs only users who "do the maintenance work" and that any remaining content builders should keep their mouths shut?

   Ah, hallo Epipalegic. I was wondering if and when you would turn up here. I do hope that anyone reading these questions will follow the links, read the entire posts and above all the context in which they were written. If you have read my nomination statement, I'm sure you will understand and will be able to rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin.

   • You haven't answered the question Kudpung. I mentioned nothing about "blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin". Is that string of ugly terms just an attempt at smearing?

4. A few hours ago you indefinitely blocked a content builder who had a 655 mainspace edit history over a period of two years, and had never been previously blocked. You claimed that he/she was not "here to build the encyclopaedia", and blanked their talk page. Other users intervened, including a prominent admin (a recent arbiter) who commented to the blocked editor that blanking your talk page was pointless and unnecessary and kind of a "look how powerful I am" move. Do you believe that power now should reside only with maintenance workers like yourself?

   Let;s not talk about 'prominent' admins, please. Let's prefer for the benefit of readers to allow them the opportunity to see this issue in its full scope and also read the edit summaries of 'prominent' admins, and the ensuing discussions. The real power is in the hands of the community, people like yourself who can make or break the reputations of others. They have the power to be abusive, make personal attacks, harass and bully other editors, sometimes in fact to the point they leave the project completely. Admin 'power' is available to help prevent these things from happening but is not always successful in the case of users who carefully just stay below the radar. If you have read my nomination statement, I'm sure you will understand and will be able to rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin.

   • But that is incoherent. And why have you repeated the irrelevant nonsense you posted in your response to the first question?

6. Since you consider Wikipedia has been basically built, what remaining role, if any, is there for serious content builders on Wikipedia?

   Content builders should build content. Preferably about subjects such as marine biology for example in which they are knowledgeable and spend less time contriving reasons to disparage other editors who have been elected to roles that help to keep that content clean and free of disruption and the working environment free of people who have made it their mission to spoil the pleasure of others. I doubt if any admins have ever interfered with your production of content, but where you discuss such arcane subjects as pain in fish, please spare a thought for the pain that users can inflict on each other with incivility. If you have read my nomination statement, I'm sure you will understand and will be able to rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin.

   • Again, you haven't answered the question. And you've repeated that irrelevant nonsense for a third time, word for word. Perhaps something is wrong with your computer. If you are confused enough to think the diff you gave is, in context, an example of incivility then it is really time for you to relinquish your adminship.

8. A key attribute an arbitrator needs to possess is the ability to assess fraught situations in a clear and objective manner. A few hours ago you posted a longer response to question 2 above on a community discussion page. There you claimed I had demanded you relinquish your tools for "using NOTHERE as a possibly slightly inaccurate rationale", and you then accused me of "poor form" and "really very bad faith". Given that your claim was false, this bluster amounts to personal attacks based on a falsehood. How would you rate your ability to make objective assessments in fraught situations?

   You can rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin. Whether I get elected or not, there will be an official enquiry into the questioning strategies and tactics used in the Arbcom Election's current format. Thank you for your interest in the way Wikipedia is managed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from User:Beyond My Ken

2. Do you believe that SPI is the only legitimate mechanism for determining the nature of suspicious editors? If so, what do you advise long-term editors with a good feel for behavioral patterns to do about questionable editors when there is no clear candidate for who the master might be?

   Hi BMK. It depends what you mean by 'suspicious' editors. There are many kinds of suspicious behaviour that don't fall within the remit of the SPI process. Sockpuppet Investigations is a method by which we determine whether or not users have been using multiple accounts in a manner contrary to our policies. There are many reasons why they do this, including, among others, serial vandals who hop from one account to another; those who seek to influence debates and/or elections by posing as different people; those who create accounts to evade blocks and bans; and those with a COI who are determined to push their opinion, propaganda, or corporate promotion into our articles.
   
   The main advantage of the SPI system is its association with those who have access to the CheckUser tool. While the tool itself is not always 100% conclusive it does require a compelling argument for its use. Just as (in)conclusive are editing patterns that can lead us to assume with relative certainty (usually through consensus) that some accounts and IP addresses are operated by the same person. This is where the SPI system is not necessarily the only legitimate mechanism for determining inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Those that pass the 'Duck' test with reasonable certitude can be blocked through another process such as ANI or even unilaterally by an admin. I would recommend any editor to take his or her suspicions to SPI. In the rare case that a long-term editor is unsure of what to do, then they can ask for advice at a noticeboard or an admin direct. If a long-term editor has a broad experience and a good feel for behavioural patterns I would suggest they join the SPI department as a clerk, or apply for CU tool access, or even, and probably best, run for adminship.
   
   The actual sock 'master' is relatively unimportant in an investigation. It's usually regarded to be the oldest account of a set of multiple accounts, but may often simply be the first one to be discovered. Some cases are so complex we have no real way of knowing. In the case of Orangemoody in which hundreds of accounts were created in the furtherance of paid advocacy, for those who wish to help with the cleanup we have issued descriptions of the typical signs to look for. In any event, SPI is not an area in which I have a particular desire to be an instructor or a trainer, it's not necessarily an issue for the Arbitration Committee and if I were accorded a seat on the Committee, if the necessity arises to carry out a CU investigation, I would probaly leave it to someone else. There are other aspects to the work on the Committee and I can't be forced to use the technical tools that may be available to it. AFAIK, it's not a prerequisite for Arbcomship, but if it is and I missed it, I will gladly withdraw my candidacy immediately.

Questions from GrammarFascist

2. Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are cis, trans or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in Triesenberg if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I won't count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force affirmative action. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.

   See the question by Pldx1 above.

4. Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.

   I don't think it's likely that a non admin will be elected to Arbcom any time soon, and this is a perennial topic. If it's any consolation however, I am voting for at least one candidate who is not an admin and opposing at least one who isn't. I realise that this does not directly answer your question but as someone said recently (or in words to this effect): In these elections we get the results we deserve, not necessarily the ones we need

Thanks for responding, Kudpung. For the record, I consider this process as much an election as a job application, and political candidates' demographic markers are usually considered fair game, even in countries where such considerations can't be used as a basis for hiring decisions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, GrammarFascist, I don't doubt that your question is made in good faith and you may even have asked it of other candidates who might have answered more fully, but Wikipedia is a voluntary organisation, not a job for which we are being interviewed. Such lines of questioning are expressly illegal in many civilised, democraric constitutions (if I recal correctly they were/are typical of fascist and other extremist regimes), and in my opinion are treading very closely on thr bounds of the permissible here. Whether I get elected or not, there will be an official enquiry into the questioning strategies and tactics used in the Arbcom Election's current format. Thank you for your interest in the way Wikipedia is managed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Brustopher

Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

2. User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on Wikipedia with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Wikipedia user Bar. The Bar account on Wikipedia is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Wikipedia account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of WP:OUTING and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Wikipedia account?

   I don't know what or where Wikipediocracy and reddit are and although I have a pretty good idea, I expect I'll be obliged to find out if ever I miraculously get elected, and they are not the only places people hide behind the anonymity afforded by Internet traditions to say terrible things about other people with impunity; it happens often enough on Wikipedia. I don't think The Committee has any jurisdiction ove external sites or CU or any other techical abilities to intervene there. The moral of this story is if you are not obliged to stick your head in a noose as admins often are, avoid confrontation or being confrontational and frequenting sites which exist to disparage Wikipedia editors and are known to harbour the bad, very bad hand of some good hand Wikipedians. I cannot state with certainty if this would be regarded as outing, we would have to wait on an Arbcom discussion on a case by case basis, that's why it's a committee.

4. User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her Wikipedia username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Wikipedia." She looks into the account that has uploaded these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Wikipedia User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to Wikipediocracy's forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Wikipedia editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of WP:OUTING as part of their justification for site banning Alice?

   It may be unpleasant to see a caricature of one's self posted somewhere - prominent members of society and politics have to put up with being lampooned all the time. The thing to remember is that if you deliberately make a name for yourself from being either popular or unpopular (like for example being an active admin, or spearheading a GLAM project, or organising a Wikimania or being the ringleader of RfA reform, or in the vanguard of discussions on gender related issues, or using Wikipedia for a non encyclopedia related political platform of some kind) you are going to be a target for praise or criticism according to what you have done to get yourself noticed.
   
   The moral of the story is that if you are going to seek a loud career on Wikipedia and flirt with the sites that exist to disparage it, and don't want to be subject to attacks and harasement in real life, you make absolutely sure that no one will connect you with your RL identity. Remain fully anonymous and even if the lies, innuendos, and attacks people make about you sometimes makes you almost physically sick, it doesn't matter - On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. If however whatever you do causes frustration and disruption here on Wikipedia among other and probably only indirectly involved users, even if it is to constantly defend you, it may come to the point that you will be asked to stop or leave, and if you don't, steps may have to taken to prevent you from entering the room. I've already mentioned elsewhere that I will not use my candidacy as a platform for judging the past actions of the Committee. If such or similar cases come before the Committee again I would treat them on a per-case basis based on the evidence, the comments of the involved parties, and the discussion among committee members.

Question by Müdigkeit

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

   As many as it needs to do a thorough and honest job - but not a second more. Depends what your criteria are for müde.

Question from Johanna

2. What is your general philosophy with regards to dispute resolution? If elected, how would you apply these tenets to the Arbitration Committee?

   I don't think my philosophy has much to do with it (if it did, it would need 5,000 words to explain). You can be sure however that I have a very pragmatic approach to the kind of work I do as an admin or would do as a Committee member.

Question from Wbm1058

2. What were the beginning and ending dates of your spell on WP:OTRS (approximately)? Did you enjoy working that beat? Why did you leave that position?

   I joined OTRS before I became an admin. I thought it would be a place where I could help out but it's a bit of a lonely mission and and I found the user interface not to be particularly compelling. When I became an admin I found I could better use my knowledge and tools for keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism and other udesirable content. I became a less frequent visitor to OTRS and I was finally kicked off it without out so much as a warning for inactivity - ironically while I was actually right in the middle of dealing with a sensitive BLP issue.

Thanks. I see the relevant policy is m:OTRS/Activity policy. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting to note that I dd not receive any of those various warning of closure of my ORTS acount. I thought it was a bit abrupt while I was actually in the middle of resolving a case, but I'm not particularly disapointed with not having the OTRS access - I have plenty to keep me busy as an admin on Wikpedia,and particuarly offline with my outreach work (which of course I would have to throttle back if I were elected here). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from SageRad

Hi, KudPung. Thank you for running for the position, i know it takes a lot of personal time and effort.

2. What is your take on bullying that happens on Wikipedia? What would you think of stronger guidelines about bullying behaviors, and an anti-bullying task force made up of volunteers as a way to curb long-term problematic bullying behaviors?

   Bullying is a delicate issue. It's a bit of a Catch-22 because on one hand there are editors like yourself who feel that more should be done about it, while on the other hand admins who block the bullies are often accused of being the bullies, or even end up being bullied themselves. Due to our WP:INVOLVED policy, admins are not allowed to defend themselves against gratuitous PA, incivility, and bullying and this may possibly be a reason why it could eventually be perceived that they are reluctant to intervene (this is however pure conjecture on my part and I personally have no evidence for it - as an admin I am not afraid of the flak I get for my work, and there are in fact a few others who are prepared to work in the trenches). There are others who would suggest that the creation of a special group of vigilantes would not only create more bureaucracy but would also increase the abuse of power - mind you, it might finally let the admins off the hook. So I'm afraid I do not have a silver bullet for you.

Questions from Ryk72

Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

2. The en.Wikipedia community has been likened to that of a gaol (US:prison), with members of various gangs aggressively supporting each other in disputes, which are policed by trusted inmates. Do you agree with this view? If so, why so? If not, why not? To what extent are the behaviours which lead to this view enabled by AN/I, AE & ArbCom?

   Has it? Have you been reading that Wikipedicracy thing or something? I don't go there.

4. Do you believe that our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution? If so, is this a good or bad thing? If bad, what role should ArbCom play in addressing this?

   I don't have an opinion on this because I can't figure out why you might think our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution. Arbcom's role is to examine evidence and as a committee, pronounce a solution sanction, or reedy.

6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?

   Has WP:BOOMERANG become a policy or guideline? I didn't think it was. In fact when I last looked, I thought is was an essay which probably attempts to help people understand that if they do or say stupid things, they might end upas the one with with the custard pie in their face. How can one abolish an essay?

8. We see regular use of WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK to justify indefinite blocks of new editors entering contentious topic spaces, without those editors being explicitly linked to banned accounts. Is this use justified? If so, why so? If not, why not?

   A CU is not required to be able to enact a sockpuppet block. In fact in most cases it isn't. Most ducks just shut up and go away. If they keep creating accounts or disrupting Wikipedia as an Ip, they'll soon be subject to a CU and get blocked anyway. Some editors have a nose for seeking out ducks and recognising them - sometimes I have, but not all the time.

10. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Remedies, ArbCom implemented a "500/30" limit on edits to the Palestine-Israel (the 3rd topic space in which this remedy has been used). What are the positives & negatives of this remedy as written? Would a more technical/formal implementation (akin to semi-protection) be an improvement? What other improvements, if any, might be made?

    I think any reasonable steps to prevent political POV or propaganda from entering Wikipedia articles are justified. If such a case were brought to the Committee if I were a member, I would examine the evidence and based on a discussion among Committee members,vote for the most appropriate solution. These things have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

12. A hypothetical editor, involved in a contentious topic space, regularly derails Talk page discussion with personal views on the subject, anecdotes of their off-Wiki involvement in the topic, epistemological first principle reasoning for exclusion of material, "hatting" of discussions, and snide attacks on new editors. Administrators have failed to address this editor's behaviour; WP:AE has failed to address the editor's behaviour. What should be done?

    I don't know. If such a case were brought to the Committee if I were a member, I would examine the evidence and based on a discussion among Committee members,vote for the most appropriate solution. These things have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

14. Would you be prepared to recuse from 1/3rd of cases, and encourage other Arbs to do likewise, so that each case might be addressed faster, and by fewer Arbs?

    I would recuse from an issue if I were genuinely so deeply involved that my participation in resolving it were not apt.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions by Ihardlythinkso

2. You've stated your "anti-admin brigade" phrase refers to "archetype of editors who frequently make disparaging remarks about admins and/or adminship in general. In a nutshell, they tend to tar all all sysops with the same brush", but I wonder if instead of identifying an archetype, you are trying to create a myth of a stereotype? Also by your use of the phrase, aren't you "painting" reg editors against whom you use it, with a "broad brush" yourself? And when you use the phrase haven't you done so consistently aggressively as though it is a weapon? And doesn't said use only tend to create polarization between yourself & other editors where it isn't necessary or desirable to do in a collaborative project like WP? And how does your defense of ongoing use of the phrase, with all these negatives, help make a case that you are a good candidate for arbcom?

   I genuinely believe that there are indeed a few editors who possibly fit that archetype (name any kind of architype and you'll find someone to fit it). I've sometimes wondered how I could name them without being out of order, but I stay in order and at the end of the day I've got better things to do. Of course, if they self-identify with it, that's their problem, not mine. I would come down on them quite heavily if they were brought before Arbcom for a long pattern of proven harassement of other editors or admins or disruption of due process, because that sort of thing gives Wikipedia a bad reputation, something to run Wikipedia down for on that Wikipediocrasy thing, and also eventually drives editors off the project.but in fact I think most of them are careful to stay just below the radar, so they've probably got nothing to fear from Arbcom at all, although they might find temselves at ANI or even blocked by an admin before they know it. If you're really curious, I can provide some diffs.

4. Given your response, what I find still incongruous, is the frequency with which you use the phrase and the circumstances in which you use it. The depiction in your response is that the so-called archetype is limited re number of editors, and that these editors are seldom subjects of arb cases or even ANI threads (your language "they might find themselves at ANI", suggesting infrequence). So if the prevalence of this sort of thing is not great, and you have better things to do with your time, how does your ongoing frequent use of the phrase fit into that picture? And what positive thing do you expect to come out of your frequent use of the phrase, when it disparages and potentially offends by its very nature, you don't identify editors, and there is never any followup? And how is that any different from casting aspersions? And how is that different from yourself being "careful to stay just below the radar" by not quantifying who is the target of your phrase when you use it in any given circumstance? (BTW what diffs are you offering? You've been asked to identify the target of your phrase when you've used it in the past, if I'm not mistaken you've always been non-responsive to those requests.) IHTS (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

   I have already answered your near identical previous question. This question is a simple rewording. I'm not going to waste my time with a rewording of my previous answer. There is non-responsive and non-responsive; I've never felt obliged to met your incessant demands for a definition of my use of English, are you afraid that you might be included in that definition and if so, why? If not, then perhaps you have better things to do such as maintaining your list of quotes. . You can start looking for the answer in that list of 230 or so quotations on your user page. Other editors searching that list would soon be able to gauge what they feel might be classed as anti-adminism or even WP:POLEMIC. Thank you for your questions. Voting has started and you are welcome to take part in the election proper. I have now finished answering your questions.

My followup was not a "rewording" - it was based off your previous response. Plus, by not being forthcoming to explain diffs you offered (BTW how can that particular sub-question possibly qualify as a "rewording"??), and trying to answer a question with a question, you are demo'ing to me that you not only will continue to use the phrase as an intimidation/aspersion weapon, but that is the status quo that you like to keep. By dodging my followup Q with ad hominems, do you think that helps your candidacy?! You might as well say in your candidate statement that you are an advocate of polarizations between reg editors and admins. That seems to serve a personal agenda Kudpung, as I don't see any admin other than you doing same. IHTS (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I follow, but do not understand your agenda - but you are not on trial here. I think perhaps you should look for a dictionary definition of the expressions you appear to be misusing here. As long as I do not clearly associate any particular individual with an identifiable archetype or excrement stirrer, I will firmly continue to do so. Anyone who feels addressed by it will find themselves reddening around the collar and that's their problem not mine - at least until they are brought before the Committee for something or other. Let's invite the potential voters to visit your user page list and see if they find it a) interesting, b) polarising, c) divisive, d) as having any possible anti-admin connotations. e) useful towards helping users have confidence in their elected peers. Have the last word again if you will. You usually do. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You're essentially admitting what I've concluded (you want status quo whereby you continue to use the phrase as aspersion weapon to polarize and potentially offend). Not good (not even consistent w/ conduct standard for admin, let alone arb candidate), Kudpung. This isn't about me, as you mention ... but then go on to contradict by throwing all manner of accuses and attempt to disparage and bait a catfight, right here in your arb Q & A! How pugnacious. (And how sensible, Kudpung??) IHTS (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You can rest assured Ihardlythinkso, that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin, or attempts to start flame wars. Whether I get elected or not, there will be an official enquiry into the questioning strategies and tactics used in the Arbcom Election's current format. Thank you for your interest in the way Wikipedia is managed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Spooky, Kudpung. (Is this an amateur-volunteer encyclopedia-building website? Or some wrong-turn horror-dungeon roleplay game?) IHTS (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from User:Blackmane

2. This is a hypothetical that is somewhat based on real threads that have occurred on WP:AN and WP:ANI in the past. An editor who self identifies as having a mental disability or disorder has been indefinitely blocked for a variety of violations, take your pick of edit warring, NPA, disruption, CIR, POINT, Godwin's etc, and is now seeking to return to editing. Quite a few members of the community have sought to advise this editor on why they were blocked but struggle to get the editor to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how Wikipedia works with those who suffer from such disorders. This is an open ended, and deliberately vague, question that will no doubt be difficult to answer, but is more for me, and presumably other editors, to get a grasp of your thoughts. Blackmane (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sure with your extraodinary presence on the drama boards compared to your content work - 2,467 (65.72%)/.72% Main: 600 (15.98%) - that you have far more experience of this kind of thing than I, or even most admins have. As I have not heard of such issues being handled by the Committee, I would assume that the community is intelligent enough to empathise and act accordingly. Yes, your question is too vague for an answer because these things have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. With my 40-year career in education I have probably seen more instances of peope with disabiities than even you have at ANI. I think I can be relied upon to do the 'right' thing - whatever that might be in a particular specific case.

Question from Dcs002

2. What exactly are the drama boards? (I've only begun hearing that term while reading in these candidate question and discussion pages and the pages they link.) Does contribution on any particular type of page constitute a disservice to WP? I worked on AfD's for a while. Is that a drama board? Is this a drama board? I initiated two Mediation Cabal cases (both had happy endings). Was that a drama board? I opened an RfC on W2W - drama board? I truly don't know what drama boards are because I have not seen them defined. Sometimes I just have more interest in process and policy, and I think I have something to contribute. Sometimes I think I can contribute by helping to work things out, and I have a fairly good track record there, at least rescuing articles from AfD's. Is someone going to bite me for having made so many edits to non-article space? I don't know what background there might be for your response to the above question, but would you consider this type of argument appropriate in ArbCom? This appears to be another example of you looking up information on a particular person and providing that as an argument, or part of one, for minimizing the content of what they have to say or even ask. Is this a pattern with you? I am not aware of any WP policy pertaining to the disability question, and maybe we need one? (Please keep in mind you are addressing a general audience here, not people who have been following any sort of dispute, and not just the person who asked the question. Questions from contrarians are opportunities, if that's what this is.)

   That was actually 7 questions, and inmy normal style, at best I can sometimes only provide vague answers, if indeed I answer them at all. Drama boards are places where some people go with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin. Sometimes their concerns are justified, sometimes they most definitely are not. With the exception of those who are lodging a complaint, whether credible or not, places like WP:ANI and Arbcom are allowed to be populated by people who treat the venues like the village pillory. All they do is hamper the work of the admins who have to be there (well, supposed to be though many are scared to death of such places and stay away from them,) Ironically, WP:RfA, the place where admins get created, is also a drama board, because like the others, anyone can have their say, and because it concerns an adminship candidate, they are allowed to behave with absolute impunity in a manner which would get them thrown out of a room in real life. I see it all the time because I'm what we call a front line admin who works in these areas because someone has to. Looking up information on a particular person and providing that as an argument is a necessary part of the work - that's why we even have special tools to do it. Arbcom is a more refined form of drama board, at least on the public pages where threaded discussions are not allowed; the Committee has even better and more sophisticated tools for their research. It's all a bit like the law enforcement agencies' DNA and fingerprint databases, together with criminal record files. We should clearly be allowed to protect our people and pages by profiling the people who come here to disrupt. What happens behind the scenes at Arbcom is only known to Committee members and former members, and apart from vague descriptions of what a hell hole it apparently is, they don't talk about it much. But don't run away with the idea that Wikipedia is some kind of dystopia or mass fatality event to get all excited about, it isnt, Arbcom is not Big Brother, and there hasn't been a mass casevac yet.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Third-party comment (by User:Leaky caldron) moved to Kudpung's discussion page as this page is only for questions and candidate's answers. THEowner of a l l 20:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from LeoRomero

2. Hi @Kudpung: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia in so many ways. Could you please clarify what you mean by: being an Arbcom member is definitely 'no big deal'

   - It's very hard work and time consuming for absolutely no reward whatsoever (a bit like being an admin only much, much worse), and it takes one away from the very reason one joined Wikipedia for.

4. Over the years I've made some enemies - it comes with the job - How many is some, rounded to the nearest 10, more or less? When I think "enemies", I think terrorists blowing up kids in malls. The thought of people making "enemies" in Wikimedia - esp as part of a job ... cringe. What can you do such that, at worst, you'd have "adversaries" instead of "enemies"?

   - Less than 10. You'll probably discover them on the question page.

6. if they were truly honest with themselves they know that I am fair without being lenient, and firm without being possessed of power - you say your "enemies" are dishonest, at least to themselves. Did you really mean what you said?

   - Yes, of course I did.

Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC

Following the instructions as queried by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง and according to THEowner of a l l see above. --Riverstogo (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Kevin Gorman

2. Recently a situation came up where the gender of an editor, which had not been disclosed by the editor anywhere on-wiki, was posted on several pages. The gender of the editor given the nature of their background is a potentially quite sensitive piece of information, with potential real-life implications. With fairly extensive discussion and multiple requests to oversight the information, the decision was made not to oversight the information with the stated reason being that gender does not explicitly fall under any of the English Wikipedia's oversight criteria. In a similar situation, would you support either interpreting the oversight criteria more broadly in general, IAR oversighting a situation like this, rewriting the oversight criteria to be more inclusive, or would you choose to not oversight the information in question? (As background, according to the EFF, the triumvirate of date of birth, zip code, and gender are sufficient to uniquely identify 87% of American citizens.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

   Bit late in the day for more questions - with 2,500 votes cast already the community's mind has already been made up. I am no more and no less interested in protecting the identities of American citizens than I am of any editor from any other country (let's see how well someone can take that out of context). Your question is as vague as the link you provided. You don't provide enough background information. For your story, we need to look at how and and why the identity was revealed. We all have a choice when we register and in what we say about ourselves. Some use their real names, others don't. Anyone who has been outed has generally not been careful somewhere. Nevertheless, some people do some silly things and at Wikipedia we are a very forgiving and supportive community. That said, until I know the how and why, I have to answer your question by saying that I would examine the situation and the evidence, and make my decision based on that and discussion with other committee members. I am not here to pass judgement on closed or current cases, and I have already said that if I were elected, I would have enough work to do without wanting to change our Arbcom, CU, OS, or other rules..Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from User:Wikimandia

2. Many editors were unhappy with the results of the recent Neelix fiasco, in which the AC closed the case as soon as Neelix resigned as an admin, despite the fact that many of the issues brought up in the evidence page had nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of administrative tools or even his redirect spam, including building walled gardens and violation of WP guidelines concerning advocacy in editing. This led to accusations of a double standard for admins and regular editors. (If a non-admin had done the same, there could be no such easy dismissal as we don't have tools to resign). Neelix never acknowledged or agreed to stop any of this behavior, simply (eventually) apologized for the redirects only and then later resigned with no further comment. There was significant support for at least a topic ban at the ANI. Do you believe a topic ban or other measure should have been applied in this case?

   Hi Wikimandia, if you have read everything I have already said here, you will have understood that I do not believe it is appropriate for me to comment on open or closed issues handled by the current Committee. You will also have seen that I am clearly a firm advocate of equitable solutions or sanctions whatever station an editor occupies. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)