Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Isarra

Isarra[edit]

Hi. I'm Isarra, I like pie, and I happen to be a Wikipedian. I'm not an admin, but sometimes I do things, especially if they involve formatting, recent changes, images, technical issues, getting horribly annoyed at OTRS, pie, or commenting on random discussions.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Basically I'm putting my name here mostly because I can, and because of pie. Pie is important and delicious and we should all stop to appreciate a good piece of pie from time to time.

There has also been talk that arbcom needs more diverse voices - members from different backgrounds and perspectives to better represent the views of the overall community. This could include content editors, newer users, and anyone who is not afraid to say what they feel need to be said no matter how unpopular it may be^[4] - despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that such users are in many cases unlikely to run in the first place due to the nature of the elections and subsequent responsibilities.

As much as I agree that such talk is well worth considering, I am happy to say that I would probably be of no help whatsoever in addressing such concerns.^[5]

Notes

^ Very random.
^ ...and often entirely unhelpfully.
^ ...depending on what you consider to be unhelpful.
^ Even if it happens to be as unpopular as arbcom itself is at times.
^ Unless for some reason they happen to involve pie.

The WMF unfortunately already knows who I am, but I trust those currently discussing the proposed policy regarding access to non-public data to come up with something reasonable, so compliance there should not be an issue if it comes to it.
The only alternate account I generally use is Isarra (HG), but for a full list of ones I know of you can see User:Isarra/alternate accounts.

Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate: Isarra

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions[edit]

What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
Er... good question. I do have considerable experience with pie, though. The Arbitration Committee needs more pie, as pie is delicious.
As an administrator on other projects and serial commenter in general, I might also be able to bring differing perspectives and ideas to the table, while still maintaining a firm ground with the ideals and process of the English Wikipedia itself - cases tend to wind up before the Arbitration Committee because the main channels have failed to resolve them, so this would be the place to consider more unusual solutions.
What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
There was this one ArbCom case once where I requested a clarification and it kind of exploded all over the place. It was rather unfortunate.
Usually I try to just work issues out on a talkpage, or over IRC or email if such a channel seems better suited, but sometimes that just doesn't work.
Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
I don't like to do most things in general unless they involve eating pie, because context is everything. Why a user did something in the first place and if they are likely to do it again are paramount, and the effect it has on other users and the rest of the project and other such questions as well can mean the difference between a collapsed pie and a half-eaten pie, and that is a difference that makes a difference.
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
Any topic areas in which I happen to be involved, with the exclusion of pie, may be thus, though I can't think of much off-hand beyond that I am an Uncyclopedian. So for instance I'd probably avoid anything involving Uncyclopedia. Although if a group of Uncyclopedians were to somehow manage to persist at something long enough for it to make it to ArbCom, that would be really bizarre considering our, ah, typical attention spans.
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
Just the usual things that could potentially happen to anyone - dying horribly, getting sent to Antarctica for reasons, winding up in a job that prevents me from properly participating (such as by sending me to Antarctica), or what have you. Being abducted by aliens is also a possibility, as I've not been too good about keeping on my tinfoil hats due to needing the foil for pies.
Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
I haven't really been keeping up with ArbCom's cases and whatnot recently, so I'm just going to assume that generally if I haven't heard anyone complaining about them they were probably handled reasonably well.
The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
If ArbCom taking the case would help in the long run and it is feasible for it to do so, it probably should unless there's somewhere better for the matter to be.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
There really should be a way within procedure for the community to lynch arbitrators if they lose all faith in them. But politely. And without too much drama. Somehow.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
The role and responsibilities seem reasonable; how folks might go about specific aspects can be another matter, but that's another matter.
It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
ArbCom removes voices from discussions. These are generally voices causing problems. Ideally this results in the related disputes and any subsequent policy proposals being resolved, so even if ArbCom isn't directly creating policy or deciding content disputes, it's still affecting them. And when that works, it works. It doesn't always work, though.
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
ArbCom is like a really big stick used to clobber people who won't cooperate or abide by policies, BLP included. Really big sticks should only be used when smaller sticks fail, or when it's funny. Except ArbCom isn't funny. Ever. That would be wrong.
Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
Since I'm not an admin and those extensions generally assume admin rights it'd probably be a bad idea for me to request the rights on technical grounds alone, despite how much I tend to enjoy snooping through the checkuser log.
Seriously, though, I'd rather leave those to folks with whom the community has already entrusted the rest of the relevant tools unless a specific need arises, as they'd have a better idea of how to use the whole pile anyway.
Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
I have no idea how anyone else could possibly out something that would result in more damage than I already cause myself. And I already get harassed enough for other things that I doubt that would change much either.
Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
Maybe some, maybe not. It's a tricky issue, considering an ever-present potential for security breaches and also potentially relevant laws in relevant countries, none of which I happen to be familiar with. There may well be good reason to keep some, though. I just don't know.
Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
This is really really scary and should be only done if absolutely necessary, and when there is certainty. Although direness can overcome uncertainty when a reasonable possibility of damage to the project or its users or the WMF or something else that's important to us is present. Urk.

Individual questions[edit]

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
That seems a bit extreme, but sometimes things do come up and/or complicate matters and delays can happen with anything - be it a deployment, a resolution, or a cat picture. In such cases it does help to keep everyone in the loop, but just from looking at that one I can't really tell if such was an issue or not there.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
Wikiprojects can probably serve several purposes - such as acting as a closer community that works together on specific topics, or even just acting as a list of names of people to poke if you've an announcement or question regarding the topic. They don't own articles any more than anyone else does, no matter how valuable their contributions creating and maintaining them, but they do often look after them and other folks should appreciate that they might have a better idea what's viable when it comes to maintaining articles long term.
If they have a conflict with the greater community, they should resolve it with the greater community same as any other random pile of people resolves something with the greater community - by discussing it, throwing cats at each other, and generally escalating it out of control. I mean, not escalating it out of control. That would be ridiculous; folks should be prepared to back down in light of opposing consensus even if they are an expert, or right, or what have you. They can still be correct about something even if the article says something else, because Wikipedia follows consensus - of users and sources - not what may or may not actually be right or true.
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
Wikipedia has several problems with vested contributors. Some of these problems are the solutions users try to come up with for their takes on the problems, and in that vein I have absolutely no idea what would be a better solution, aside from maybe hitting people with large sticks because that's my solution for everything, at least after cross-dressing. But hitting people with large sticks when they step out of line wouldn't really work in practice either since one of the other problems is that we don't have clear boundaries on what 'out of line' is.
a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
I don't know what you mean by that idiom. But if one user caused another user to do something incredibly dumb that they wouldn't have done otherwise and they've since learned from the experience and won't do it again, then sanctioning them for it probably wouldn't be very useful, no. A major issue is if someone is apt to do something again, or do similar again - for instance if a user is constantly lashing out at other users for poking them, even though they wouldn't lash out if nobody poked them, that they keep doing it every time someone new pokes them in a new way could well be a problem in and of itself.

In other words, in the sort of disputes that show up in front of ArbCom, is the fault always with two parties, or could it be just one party? --Rs chen 7754 02:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are usually several parties. Even if it's mainly about one person, several other folks will have tripped over them or some such. But it can be mainly an issue with a single user, yes, or a dispute between two or several. -— Isarra ༆ 06:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
When the matter cannot be effectively or reasonably resolved otherwise. And since there doesn't seem to be much by way of other venues to handle much of this...
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee applies only to the English Wikipedia, and has the same authority over any IRC channels, mailing lists, etc that apply (or 'belong') specifically to the project that a community discussion would have, whatever that is. Other distinct projects may be affected by its actions, or may adopt similar resolutions following its lead, but it does not have jurisdiction over them any more than any other aspect of the site does. But while other sites and communities that are separate from the project do not fall under its remit, they may bring back problems - and addressing those problems as they arise on the site itself is something ArbCom may have cause to do, if it comes to it.
What is your definition of "outing"?
Outing is the posting of another user's personal information that they have not posted publicly themselves. That said, some information that they may have posted themselves should still not be repeated at all, and trying to use another user's personal information against them in a dispute or some such can be incredibly rude, but I would still not necessarily consider that outing. More just being... very inconsiderate?
What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
I'm not really familiar with the common usage of CU on Wikimedia projects, though in my minimal experience it seems to be used a decent bit more than the policies would indicate at times, though there may well be good reason for that.
As for OS, or at least its successors revision deletion and suppression, I have seen some problems with it on Commons due to the very nature of these tools preventing community oversight of actions, including actions hiding other actions. Like eek.
Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
There was this picture on Cuteness. Someone argued that it was just a random thing that isn't necessarily cute and thus wasn't actually appropriate for cuteness. Someone else argued that it demonstrated an example of what people often consider to be cute. I believe I tried to help resolve it, or got pulled into it, or something. I do know that eventually I just got fed up and left.
Different people often believe different things, and thus they do not feel that they should back down, because they are not wrong and other parties have failed to convince them of such. Thus we get disputes that cannot be easily resolved. It's headology.
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
Eventually it will collapse. Everything will collapse. The entire project will eventually collapse. In the meantime, though, it should adapt as needed; not doing so will probably be what leads to its collapse.
Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
It worried me last I checked, but once it reaches final stages it should be in a reasonable state and there shouldn't be any issues with meeting the requirements.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect[edit]

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.

An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
It depends on the case, and the folks involved. Some people, if you just so much as threaten them, they get the message and run away; opening a case can be pretty threatening, after all. I'd run away.
On the other hand, other people won't stop even if you sanction them, ban then, rangeblock them, and create a group of abusefilters to keep them away.
Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
I know I go against years of Uncyclopedian principles by saying this, but sanctioning users should be based on evidence about the user in question, yes. (On Uncyclopedia, banning everyone involved is indeed the customary solution, but this is mostly because Uncyclopedian admins are really lazy.)
Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?
If the evidence and workshop pages get out of control to the point where they merit ignoring, there is something wrong with how the case is being handled. Arbitrators take a case to consider the stuff that is then put in front of them, and if they can't keep up with it they should invest in Zombiebarons to aid them or otherwise keep the matter in check.
Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
Culture changes, policies change, impacts change. Past cases do provide useful precedents to consider, but we should always pay attention to why they went the way they did as well, because the reasons very well may no longer apply.
The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
It explains. And for that alone, it might as well be used - what are findings but things, including explanations, that are agreed upon so as to proceed to actions?
Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
The same way as they do with everything else. BLP and BDP issues are issues for reasons. All issues are issues for reasons. These reasons bring them to ArbCom.
"Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
People group together, be it around topics, ideas, editing styles, or what have you. It's just what they do. It causes problems and solves others, and if a specific group or faction is found to be causing problems leading to an ArbCom case, there is no a neat and simple answer. Action against specific individuals found to cause problems by acting, but the root could just as easily be someone else behind the scenes who causes the others to act. And there may well be no way to sort that out.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newyorkbrad[edit]

I couldn't help noticing all the references to pie in your statement and in your answers so far. Do you agree that of all the unusual platforms that candidates for ArbCom have run on over the years, yours really takes the cake?
As a relatively new user, I'm afraid I'm not terribly familiar with previous unusual platforms.
Does your browser accept cookies?
As I am Uncyclopedian admin, my browser is not only configured to accept cookies, but to eat the cookies of others. It was supposed to be a joke at the time, something about how 'you need cookies to log in, otherwise what will the admins eat' or some such, but in retrospect I believe it may have gotten slightly out of hand.
Do you expect that in this election, the voters will give you your just desserts?
I expect there will be a reckoning.

Questions by Sven Manguard[edit]

What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation?
I don't know. I suppose I'm not sufficiently versed in the intricacies of ArbCom to go into this level of detail.
When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
ArbCom overruling the community would probably go over better than WMF staff doing it, since ArbCom we do elect... and there are potentially situations where someone has to do that - for instance for technical or legal reasons. I don't know why arbcom would need to come in and settle a no-consensus issue, though. If it's particularly important, there are ways within the community to force the matter, and they do work, barring outright disruption from the folks involved (something more inarguably within ArbCom's remit). And if it isn't so important, well, it can wait.
Please identify a few motions from 2013 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
I'm only going off your depiction of events here as I'm not really familiar with what happened, but if so many need to all explain where they are coming from, it could indicate a case of agreeing on something in private only to come out and find it clashes with community expectations. Such is an unfortunately easy mistake to make, too, especially when there is need to act quickly, though a more diverse group involved in the discussion can be helpful in avoiding such situations.
If this is happening, those involved should simply learn to recognise it and prevent it from becoming a trend.
Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
Email is not an inherently private medium - many of the mailing lists do keep their archives available to everyone, though they can be a pain to search through. Same for IRC, as #wikipedia-en is something of an exception as a public channel when it comes to the no public logging policy.
In that vein, while I would say that it would be nice if more arbcom-related discussion were made public, this only really leaves on-wiki discussions. Because such tend to be much slower and less convenient in a lot of cases than a mailing list (and having a separate public mailing list wouldn't really be practical), I find it unlikely that the amount of non-public vs public business is likely to change any time soon, though the deployment of Flow may be what eventually brings this change.
The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.
- If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

- If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?

- All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?

We wait. We follow the development of Flow closely and provide feedback and testing and generally try to help ensure that it's done well, under pain of chicken. If it is, it will provide a feasible platform from which to increase the transparency of ArbCom, as well help the overall project in many other ways; if it isn't then it will be a horrible disappointment and there will be a reckoning.

Question by Tom Morris[edit]

You link in your candidate statement to a "full list" of accounts "you know of"? I hate to go all Donald Rumsfeld, but do you have accounts that are "known unknowns"? That is, are there accounts you know you have started and used but you can't remember the usernames of. If so, could you tell us what you do know about them?
As far as I know it's a complete list, but it is entirely possible (and perhaps even likely) that I missed one or two test accounts, especially given the nature of SUL and my tendency as a developer to test things on other projects. These would not be accounts I used for anything besides dummy edits or I'd probably know about them, however.

Questions by Gerda Arendt[edit]

Thank you for volunteering.

Basic first question of three: please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a change in which an infobox was moved from one section of an article to another, with minor edits to the outer formatting (namely the removal of the frame table and the move of an image into the infobox from elsewhere in the article). It demonstrates a major issue with how MediaWiki, or rather the underlying diff libraries that it uses, renders diffs of changes in which content is moved around within an article.
Unfortunately, as much as this is a common problem on the front end of MediaWiki projects, there is no simple answer as to how to fix it - not with how to detect it (that part would be fairly easy), but how to possibly display such changes in an adequate manner given the linear nature of the text and changes themselves and the 2-dimensional media on which it's displayed. I supposed it'd need a lot of arrows or something. And layers.
Thank you for investigating. - Second question: imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend entirely on what the case is about, and what it is evidence of. By itself it doesn't really indicate anything except maybe a case of forgetting to hit preview (which is an absolutely horrible crime, of course), but if there is a wide-ranging dispute about the use of tables and this happens to be an example of someone ignoring or going against consensus/lack thereof, it may well be relevant.
Given that the case in question was apparently about infoboxes, however, I'm not sure what difference it makes where in the article the infobox happens to be. There doesn't seem to be anything in the dispute about that much, at least, though perhaps I'm missing something? I can't seem to find where in context it was brought up in the case, and it's really the context that makes the difference with most of these.
Thank you for thinking. Mine is much simpler: would you perhaps ask the colleague for the reasoning behind it? (As to the location of an infobox: there's the MOS, there's some people not liking infobox at all, but was there controversy between the author and the one who added the infobox in this case? )
If I notice, I'd probably ask. It's entirely possible that it would never occur to me to ask, though, if I already know the context myself and what it's supposed to mean...
Understand. It occured to me to ask. - Let's now imagine that in a case as many arbs vote for a ban as against it, it's your turn to ban or not. Would you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I think a ban is the best solution, I would vote for it. Otherwise I wouldn't, though I might also try riding through the thing on a giraffe if it seems ridiculous enough.

Thank you, passed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? -— Isarra ༆ 23:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? For fairness, same 3 questions for all candidates, as in the opera ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tryptofish[edit]

What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?
I agree with Roger Davies.
More or less to the point, while it all seems fairly reasonable, I'm not sure what it'd actually solve. There is always ambiguity, but trying to write things down to be less so doesn't necessarily mean people will do better about it because it still comes down to the same base thing - the people themselves and the choices they make.

Question from Sceptre[edit]

Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
I never want to see Jimbo's talkpage. It's horrible, and even better than AN/I and ArbCom stuff at making people lose all faith in the project, and when more relevant things do wind up there, they generally should have been somewhere else.
As for trying to repair the reputation, I, er... wouldn't, really. Why should topics be special, even if they have been blundered over in the past? What a topic is really shouldn't be important at all, for the most part; it's how folks are conducting themselves around it that matters, and that conduct, for ill or not so ill, should have the same general standards anywhere. Trying to fix things for a specific group of people is more likely to just make matters worse, either by encouraging bias in an opposite direction, or even just complicating the editing process in general.

Question from User:SirFozzie[edit]

First off, thanks for running, even if it is only running for pie. This is a question which everyone here will judge you on, so I expect a fully explained answer (which likely will be wrong, and everyone here will yell at you for it, because that's what people do to arbitrators, or arbitrator-candidates). Peach, Apple or Boston Cream Pie?
Pie is very important and we must never forget that, so thank you for remembering.
I am told peach pie can be delicious but I've never actually had any that was; I made an excellent apple pie once but then failed to repeat the excellence every time I tried later; and I'm not sure what a boston cream pie is, but I bet it's easier to make, so I'll go with that.

Multipart question from User:Carrite[edit]

I also like pie. Three questions which will allow me to better estimate you as a pie aficionado : (1) If you were stuck in an elevator for two hours with one piece of pie and a quart of milk, what would it be? (2) Would you seek to reform a friend who ruined a perfectly good rhubarb pie with strawberries or would you break with them decisively? (3) Chocolate cream or banana cream? — and why... Carrite (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) It would be a huge mess, because after an hour I'd probably get very bored and try to use the pie and milk to MacGyver my way out. And it would almost certainly fail.
2) Strawberry-rhubarb pie can be excellent if done right. If they have a good recipe, I'd make them give it to me. If not, well, that's another matter.
3) Chocolate cream if I'm eating it for breakfast. Banana cream if I'm using it as a bludgeon to break into someone's house.

Question from Piotrus[edit]

(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
If a limited ban won't be enough to prevent disruption, then a site ban is in order. Otherwise it isn't.
wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)
Folks can try to help, and want to improve when attempts prove lacking, but that does not mean that they will necessarily succeed even if they do have all of the best intentions. It's unfortunate, but it happens. It's not so much that we don't want their help as that in some cases that help just isn't worth the trouble. As harsh as that may seem, not everyone is suited to the project and it isn't practical to babysit them until they are.
to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?)
Legality is defined by the state, and what is legal for the state to do is quite different from what a private company, organisation, or community can do on its own property. As this is a private entity, a site ban is more akin to being banned from a strip club - you might still be able to get in, but if you get noticed, the bouncer will unceremoniously throw you out on your arse (and an interaction ban is like being told to stay away from a specific girl).
Following the proposed, I suppose an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to conviction and imprisonment? Deportation is a closer parallel, but that only applies if they're not a citizen, as a nation chucking out its citizens is a lot weirder than a private entity revoking a person's membership. Something about scope.
The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?
Neither. Incarceration rate by itself doesn't really say much. Why there are so many, what gets them there, whether or not they come back, how long they're there, even the cost effectiveness and intended purpose of the entire system are much more important. I mean, say we had a country that just 'incarcerates' anyone that works for it - lumping hard criminals with smaller offenders and state workers like construction folks and such together in the same overall boarding-work system. Some will be paid a lot more, can quit if they want to, etc, but they're all working in the same system... it could be just about as effective a system as has a neighbouring country that doesn't use any incarceration system at all and only executes the worst and just fines everyone else and uses the money to hire private companies to handle all the work stuff itself.
a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
I agree with the math. I do not agree that just blocking people is necessarily bad. It can actually work quite well because if nothing else, blocks are very effective at getting people's attention, which is sometimes all it takes to get folks to do better in the long run. This does require great care, however, lest it simply drive people away instead.
As something of a tangent, it may also be worth noting that people are more inclined to stick around if they have an emotional investment in the project, and having to fight to stick around does create such an investment if it doesn't drive them off first. I'm not advocating blocking people for the sake of making them have to fight to stick around, of course - that's crazy and the sort of bad idea an uncyclopedian might have, in that it is a bad idea a bunch of uncyclopedians had awhile back - but it is an interesting thing to note.
I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.
I don't like admitting these things, but they're not exactly secret, so... sure? I dunno if it would actually help anything, but it might be interesting at very least.
I would like to point out that these days a formal education can have a lot less real meaning than it used to, however, especially in some fields. I know I didn't learn diddly squat of value, at least. Nothing pie-related at all.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:Fluffernutter[edit]

You stated recently that you felt that there was "nothing wrong with [calling a female editor pretty] in most contexts" on Wikipedia and that it was evidence of a woman being "emotionally unstable" if she would not or could not appreciate sexualized comments about her in a Wikipedia environment. You did allow, though, that you wouldn't comment personally on someone's looks during an Arbitration proceeding. How do you reconcile your sentiment that women (and men) must accept sexual comments about themselves on Wikipedia with the WMF's attempts to close the gender gap on Wikimedia projects by making the project more welcoming to women? How would your feelings on this matter influence your approach to arbitration cases involving sexual harassment or "othering" of female or other sexual/gender minority editors?
It's a matter of equality, and the value we place on editors as people, regardless of what they are.
Calling a male editor 'cute' is acceptable. Thus it should be that calling a female one 'pretty' should also be acceptable. Now doing either of these may not be entirely constructive in most circumstances, but if random compliments are truly disruptive, especially when they are meant only as compliments, does this sound like a very welcoming environment to you?
Why do our female editors need to be protected from the same things that we simply accept for our male editors? Why are we special? How is it that if we are 'pretty' we're being sexualised and yet if MZMcBride is described as literally 'sexy' it isn't necessarily sexual at all? Would it be sexualising Seraphimblade to say he is handsome and I don't think his userpage photo does him justice? And, for that matter, would it be necessarily be bad? We're human - we're sexual creatures and it affects everything we do, one way or another. Out of respect we take care with our words and actions to not go too far, but it is also entirely possible to go too far with that as well, and I would argue that applying different standards to men and women is exactly that, going too far. It devalues the individual to nothing more than how they were born or what they identify as, regardless of who they are or what they themselves make of themselves. It's like the difference between not calling Malleus Fatuorum names because he'll just respond in kind and piss off a bunch of other people, and not calling me names because I'm a female editor and we don't have enough female editors. In this scenario Malleus is recognised for his choices and I'm only recognised for my gender, and as much as we do this sort of thing with the best intentions, it is frankly bloody insulting if you stop to think about it.
I cannot reconcile with the WMF's attempts to close the gender gap, because I disagree with the very premise. Women and men are different, and tend toward different things, and trying to go against that just harms both because if someone isn't genuinely interested in being somewhere, they won't stick around, and in the meantime it takes away resources from those who are. If the nature of the projects appeals more to most men, this is not inherently a bad thing, it simply means that those of us who are here are here because we are genuinely interested in being here. So it should be for everyone, male, female, dog, or what have you. But this is also not to say that the projects cannot be made more inviting in general, and to less common personality types, and indeed the Teahouse was a lovely step forward in that direction - it's just that making it about relative numbers of men and women (which is all the 'gender gap' actually is) is not the right way to go about it. We're here because of who we are, the choices we make, and what we have to offer the project. This is our value as editors. Ain't nobody should take that away by being sexist about it, and bringing sex/gender into it as a determining factor is the very definition of sexist.

Now I appreciate that these probably aren't the most popular views, but this is what I think, and I think it needs to be said. The funny thing about it is that as much as I probably should recuse from anything involving sexual harassment because I feel so strongly about it, the fact of the matter is that I only feel so strongly about it because so rarely do people seem to care or even notice when the discrimination goes in a different direction than what is politically correct. It shouldn't matter who is being discriminated against - male, female, cis, gay, blind, polish, wtfbbq - because we shouldn't, as a community and as other editors, be discriminating against anyone. We all deserve to be treated with dignity and the assumption of good faith, and we all deserve a fair hearing if something comes up.

Question from User:MONGO[edit]

Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.
My contributions to articles are not what gets them classified as good, or on the main page. Nor have I ever used or contributed to the peer review process on this project. What I do is more backend, and cross-project, but this is no less important. It takes a specific skillset and interest to work together on a single given article, and something else entirely to coordinate cross-project between editors, photographers, readers, stakeholders, developers, designers, and reviewers, but both of these we need or the project would get nowhere. Without the developers there would be no platform, without the editors no content, without the readers, no purpose. Without the protection of bot writers and vigilant countervandalists, articles that we have would quickly decay. Without those who take the time to resolve disputes, many would never get written in the first place, or would be stuck with far more biased leanings. Without those who answer questions and welcome new users, many new users would never contribute at all.
That's teamwork. And you ask only about direct contributions to the articles themselves?

Question from User:SB_Johnny[edit]

Some of the issues the Arbitration Committee is tasked with dealing with (privacy issues regarding other people's children, crazy stalker people, crazy people who might not currently be stalkers, etc.), do you think it might be time to hire professionals to sit on "Wikipedia's Highest Court"?
Also, do you think committee members should at least have free access to fresh baked pies?
Why would 'professionals' do any better, or necessarily be in any better of a position to fend off crazies? Given that they won't even be familiar with or likely even a part of the community, if anything they'd be a whole lot worse...
Pies can make good breakfasts and desserts, and making them can be an effective destresser, but unfortunately I don't see the feasibility of that either. In conclusion we're all doomed. Doomed. Dooooomed.

Question from User:Worm That Turned[edit]

Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?
It's hard to say just how it would affect me, at least at this point, because as much as I can try imagine what you lot go through, I haven't been there. So I really don't know how I would respond to the stress and crap in practice, nor what preparations would help.
It's not like Uncyclopedia. There, someone sends someone a long description of how they know exactly who we are and how they intend to rape and murder one or more of us, and we just spend the next few days mocking them for caring that deeply and being that angry about some backwater humour wiki. Dunno that any of us have ever been subject to offline crap, though. Well, that wasn't perpetrated by another Uncyclopedian, at least. Never invite an Uncyclopedian to your house, see. Terrible idea.
But Wikipedia... Wikipedia is serious business.

Question from User:HectorMoffet[edit]

The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:

In our own "Editor Trends Study"
In popular media ("Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
In scholarly literature ("How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:

Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?
Perhaps it's a good thing. With a smaller editing community, this means that a similar amount of pie will go much further amongst the remaining editors, and also be much easier to effectively transport and share. Less pie required, less space required to eat it in, and indeed more relative opportunity to get to know the rest of the community... and thus which bits of pie are most important to hoard from whom.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
The English Wikipedia community needs to start eating more pie.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
The WMF needs more pie as well. They also have the resources to do research into the pie - into what kinds are most important, and why, and indeed the wider implications of the pie. How does it relate to the other projects? How should the relationships and pie-sharing pathways between the projects be changed? It's a rather large issue, and the implications are complex.
Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
ArbCom should also eat more pie, the better to focus on the myriad specific problems it deals with within its stated purview.

Non-Pie-Related Question from Carrite[edit]

Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?
It's annoying. It might be useful to some as a place to discuss problems they see without fear of consequences or even just to vent, but it also encourages folks to make arses of themselves simply because they're elsewhere and they don't have consequences. And while I'd say that's perfectly fine if they do want to make arses of themselves elsewhere, the problem here is sometimes it comes back here, and that ain't so fine.
I suppose I take a similar view to WO and the like here as we try to take on Uncyclopedia regarding users who vandalise other projects or harass folks off of the project. Basically, it's two-fold: are they acting as representatives of Uncyclopedia in any way when doing so, or are they are bringing it home to Uncyclopedia by mentioning, linking to, or generally bragging about improper behaviour elsewhere? An example of the former might be if someone is vandalising wikipedia and proudly says they're an uncyclopedian or that uncyclopedia sent them and thus suggests we endorse the behaviour (which we definitely do not), and for the latter, suppose an uncyclopedian is vandalising wikipedia without indicating where they came from, but then comes back to Uncyclopedia and brags about it on a forum. In either case, they will be banned.
Now problems we have here with WO can be far bigger - outing, long-term harassment, and what have you - but I think the same principles apply, and they do mark a decent boundary of when to act and when to ignore. There are issues with when multiple parties are involved, such as if one person outs another user, and then someone else links it back here, but these perhaps scale as well - in such a case both parties would be subsequently responsible, though the context of why it's linked back could make a bit of a difference.
So I reckon that is what I think ArbCom should generally act upon - what comes home and how.

Questions from iantresman[edit]

How important do you think is transparency and accountability for Admins and Arbitrators, bearing in mind that: (a) Checkuser and Oversight have no public logs, even though we could say who accesses these features (without necessarily giving compromising information)? (b) ArbCom has its own off-site discussion area.
I'll take it with a side of discretion. And fries.
I see lots of ArbCom cases where editors contribute unsubstantiated acusations without provided diffs, and often provide diffs that don't backup the allegations. Do you think ArbCom should do anything about it? (ie. strike though allegations without diffs).
Unsubstantiated accusations are rude and unhelpful and entirely too easy to do. Noting them somehow is probably a good idea, yes. Or if diffs/whatever are provided via other means due to privacy concerns or something, noting that would be useful so everyone else knows what's going on.
Incivility on Wikipedia is rife. Sometimes it is ambiguous and subjective. But where it is clear, why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?
Do I?
Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?
Whether they know the implications or not at the time, this is the choice that these editors make. Choices have consequences, and while it is true that we often walk into things blind of said consequences, that's basically just how life goes. We do things, we learn, we do better in the future or we don't. People should take responsibility for their actions, not go back after the fact and claim it isn't fair. Of course it isn't fair. It's life.
Perhaps life needs an EULA or something.
I see lots of ArbCom cases where Arbitrators appear to ignore the comments of the editors involved. Do you think that basic courtesies should require Arbitrators to make more than just an indirect statement, and actually address the points being made?
If it's reasonable to do so. Sometimes it really ain't, or would just draw in further drama.

Question from Bazonka[edit]

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?
I go to meetups and stuff sometimes, and help organise them occasionally, but I don't do a whole lot for/with them and don't expect it would affect that either way.

Question from user:Ykantor[edit]

Should "Petit crimes" be sanctioned? and how ?
The present situation is described as User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued says: "some acting as "inter-wikicity gangs" with limited civility (speaking euphemistically)...Mob rule: Large areas of wikis are run by mobocracy voting. Numerous edit wars and conflicts exist in some highly popular groups of articles, especially in recent events or news articles. In those conflicts, typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule, not mediated reason...Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia"
At the moment there is no treatment of those little crimes. i.e. deleting while cheating, lying, arguing for a view with no support at all against a well supported opposite view, war of attrition tactics, deleting a supported sentence, etc. The result is distorted articles and some fed up editors who discontinue to edit. I can provide examples, if asked for.
In my view, each of these small scale problems does not worth a sanction , but the there should be a counting mechanism, such as a user who has accumulated a certain amount of them, should be sanctioned. What is your view?
If people manage to be annoying enough, regardless of if it's by doing lots of small things or fewer larger things, they should be pied.
Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?
The issue is discussed her: [1].
In my opinion, the view that every post should be neutral leads to a built in absurd. Suppose that the best Wikipedia editor is editing a group of biased articles. He is doing a great job and the articles become neutral. The editor should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side. !
No.
There are ignored rules. Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
e.g.
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone
lying

I can show that those 2 rules were ignored in the wp:arbcom but those are just an example. There are more ignored rules. So, Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
Context affects things. We establish rules so we can avoid arguing and repeating ourselves as much. We do not have rules so we can argue over them as well, regardless of whether or not that's what happens. Rules may not always apply; they are there for when they do.

Questions from user:Martinevans123[edit]

Should articles ever use The Daily Mail as a reference source? Should articles ever use YouTube videos as external links? Is there still any place for a "WP:civility" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Would you expect to see more or less ArbCom activity in the next 12 months? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, sometimes, and sure, why not, though such a policy probably wouldn't prevent much. Might save time arguing after the fact, however; such policies can be useful in that they hash out the arguing ahead of time and thus when it inevitably happens less thinking is required at that point because yay there's a policy. Let's argue about the policy now instead of about what actually happened.
Wait, what?

Yes, as far as civility goes, it seems many people are constantly unsure whether something actually happened or not. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Very random.

[2] ...and often entirely unhelpfully.

[3] ...depending on what you consider to be unhelpful.

[4] Even if it happens to be as unpopular as arbcom itself is at times.

[5] Unless for some reason they happen to involve pie.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]