365:. So I know how to make decisions, and evaluating situations and the circumstances behind it with valid policy based reasoning and being very decisive. In the real world, I have experience in the nightclub business, running the promotions staff for a top hip hop nightclub for nearly five years before promoted to inside manager prior to the nightclub shutting down. At that job, I hosted dozens of VIP guests every weekend, making sure they are completely satisfied with their needs and making sure my fellow promoters are doing the work they are supposed to. I then declined a door management position with one of the biggest nightclubs in Miami earlier in the year because of my health. I also managed to run the marketing team for my family car dealership, doing all the promotions and advertising, and managing several people under my command until late September when I had my surgery. I am also a history major, which those who are familiar with the major, involves major reading and evaluating of past and current events, and being involved in the thought process more than any other college major. I would bring my real world experience of research, leadership and people experience in those difficult businesses to the committee. With my Knowledge (XXG) experience, I would make sure that I focus on protecting the encyclopedia and rebuilding its declining editor base by making the ArbCom process run smoother and listen to the community instead of ignoring their demands by pretending they are not there like many of the committee members have done lately.
455:, which doesn't give me much stamina to work a real life, full time job nor go to school until next summer, so I have lots of time to focus on the committee and my fellow editors if elected. If I do get elected, I will fulfill the whole year my duties in the committee and then decide if I have the time to dedicate myself for 2015, which I doubt as I likely be back in school completing my degree and deciding what I want to do with my future. The only other circumstance that might prevent me from serving the full year is if my health takes a turn for the worse. It will likely involve complications from the surgery of my thyroid I had recently and not because of stress or some strange mental illness (like many of you think I have). I feel like I am capable of handling stress really well unlike before, if I didn't I wouldn't be in this position. I do get prone to anxiety at times, but I highly doubt it will affect my capabilities in ArbCom, as the anxiety tends to be related to real world stress (work and school), something I don't consider Knowledge (XXG), a dedicated hobby, to be a part. If something indeed do happens, I plan to resign immediately, but the odds are slim. To keep it simple, I likely going to aim for a one year term.
747:. Both sides start bickering and the community is unable to solve the matter as consensus is never found or they simply don't want to deal with the drama. Thus it is up to committee to deal with the situation. But ArbCom unfortunately have difficulties dealing with the issue because each member usually have a strong point of view in this matter, and typically can't find a solution to ban the editor in question. The best thing is to sanction the editor in question and hope for the best. If elected, I would deal a situation involving a "vested contributor" like I would treat any other editor. I would look at the behavior of all parties involved and see what is the proper sanction given the situation. If the behavior merits a topic or general ban, I would propose one, but I am
697:, especially self-admitted ones is something that can be dealt with the community sanctions and topic bans and the statements sounded like a complex content dispute, which is out of ArbCom realm. I believe it was accepted to deal with the issue of expert COI editing, something rarely seen in the project. Tree shaping took forever but that probably was because it is a hardly known topic area (I didn't even know what tree shaping was until I read the case) with little effect in the project in general. But because of the admitted conflict of interest, it could have been dealt within a few weeks, even if you are not a subject expert. I felt that they came to the right decision but the delay was unacceptable for such a obvious case like this.
864:. With content disputes not being "amircably resolved", that's mainly because both sides of the dispute have such strong point of views that they get too personally involved in the conflict and when neutral editors try to get involved, they are usually not familiar with the subject area. As a result, all attempts of mediation fails and the behavior of the parties involved reaches an unacceptable limit. While its stated that ArbCom do not settle "content disputes", they are always forced upon as a measure of last resort. Particularly hectic, unsolved content disputes tend to poison the editing atmosphere of the encyclopedia, and the main job of ArbCom in to protect the interests of the encyclopedia.
478:
going to arbitration is a the main reason for the drop. I would use the same criteria in deciding to accept a case as many of my fellow committee members if elected. If a conflict becomes too complicated for the community to handle, with multiple attempts at mediation and evaluating the behavior of the multiple editors then I would likely accept a case. In case of administrators, if there is a repeated pattern of incidents that could be considered as "admin abuse" instead of an isolated incident I would accept a case. It's a rather broad question as each requested case is different, thus pretty much use common sense when evaluating the merits of a case.
826:"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Knowledge (XXG)". I would expand it to off-wiki websites as well where the intent is obviously malicious and the information wasn't previously known on Knowledge (XXG), such as an editor's address, phone number, email and so forth. As a victim of outing before, I have no tolerance for outing, if I catch someone outing another editor for ill intent I would block the editor on site, oversight the information, and depending on the severity of the outing and harassment, propose a site ban.
404:
experts who at least tries to follow
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and policies but have some problems communicating with other editors, or pushing personal believes. I believe probation, a reminder, or some kind of mentoring would work unlike my first example, they are here willing to build the encyclopedia and are a net benefit despite their faults. But if that doesn't work, unfortunately a stricter sanction is in place. Desysopping is a different story and it depends on several factors, including those I mentioned above, or there was a clear pattern of abuse that affects the encyclopedia and
65:, something in which the community can't seem to find consensus on and I feel ArbCom needs to be more involved on, although people might say its not within its reach. I’m strongly against process wonkery and I also believe that ArbCom needs to focus on the community first, listening closely to any valid concerns they have, and avoid losing valued contributors. I would look at each case very delicately and use common sense in each situation, while respecting the privacy of all involved.
810:
ousting/personal information that can credibly hurt the editor in question and the community in a third party website like what happened with Phil
Sandifer recently. ArbCom should not ignore that and ban the ouster on site. But other than that any attempt of ArbCom, or the foundation trying to control what to say in IRC or some of these valid criticism websites is the same as a communist country trying to control freedom of speech and its grossly unacceptable.
253:
791:
well-being like it was in my case, or evidence of a compromised account) or if there was a clear pattern of administrative abuse that affects the integrity of the encyclopedia and all previous attempts at mediation or community compromise failed. For conduct "unbecoming" of an administrator, it should be the same as any regular user with a few special circumstances like
357:, many times closing difficult debates by policy based consensus, which I was an early proponent of. I also have active experience in article writing, having 13 FAs or GAs to my credit, plus one former FA which was promoted early on my Wikicareer but didn't had the time to keep it up to standards and was active in the
61:
which I currently have because of my recent surgery. The last few years was probably one of the worst years ArbCom ever had. It's clear that they lost sense with the community with several unpopular decisions and we lost several of our best arbitrators as a result. My platform is primarily focused on issues concerning
1272:
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
1241:
First off,Thanks for running. I note that you took a sabbatical back in
September, due to frustration with several issues. Now, I'm not saying that it wasn't a good idea (I did the same thing myself at one point), but do you think it's concern that you will suffer from burnout that if you cannot make
777:
I believe I answered most of your question above. There are multiple factors that plays a factor to accept a case on administrative conduct and abuse. Many times ArbCom tends to avoid the situation because forceful desysopping is one of the most controversial areas in the project. Look at the outrage
430:
I always been an open-minded person so my conflicting interests on or off
Knowledge (XXG) is extremely minimal at best. I would recuse on cases involving American sports and editors who I have significant interactions, either extremely positive or extremely negative with. I would also recuse on cases
967:
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
713:
Like I said in 2009, Wikiprojects can’t trump our core policies in
Knowledge (XXG), but they can be quite a help to make our encyclopedia better. I believe that Wikiprojects can enforce standards to articles, if the relevant Knowledge (XXG) policy is unclear on the situation, such as article layout.
408:
in the long term as there is many people who think the tools are a big deal, and administrators abusing the tools doesn't help the RFA process at all, which we are losing administrators in a rapid rate and unable to replace them. I'm very liberal when it comes to the tools and I believe they are not
403:
for their own advantage. Uncooperative people who clearly been warned countless times on what they are doing and ignores the community are against the spirit and integrity of the project and should not be editing in any capacity. I'll be more lenient when it comes to content contributors and subject
391:
The key words here is "what factors". It's true that each case are evaluated on its own merits, but I'm not running to give people who clearly not here to build an encyclopedia a sanction, limited topic ban or a reminder, which we know amounts to a slap on the wrist. I would be strongly in favor for
60:
Why would anyone in their right mind would run for ArbCom, especially someone with a “questionable past” you might ask? Well I believe that experience and common sense are needed for this job, as well as someone with free time to read into each argument and make suggestions for every case, something
1222:
in the topic and extremely biased in your point of view as it is unfair for me or the other candidates to predict your thoughts in what it essentially a non-factor question. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't not handle content disputes and any case involving LGBT is not exempt from the same criteria that the
417:
recent desysopping was one of the worst ArbCom has proposed in recent memory. Carter was a guy who for years who didn't mind tackling difficult areas where other administrators refuse to work on, and he done one small mistake getting involved too deeply in one of his topics of interest and now he's
1382:
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
1122:
Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on
Knowledge (XXG) (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
1112:
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
809:
None at all. The position of ArbCom doesn't state that they have the rights to expand their policies to other
Wikimedia websites, sites dedicated to valid criticism and IRC, despite how badly certain users behave in there. The only "remit" ArbCom should have in this area is if there is intentional
790:
recently. In both cases the reason for the removal of the tools has proven controversial (In my opinion, I disagree with MONGO and agree with Phil). With issues concerning the abuse of tools, ArbCom should accept cases or open a motion for either the obvious (abusive sockpuppetry, an administrator
1083:
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
936:
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
876:
I see the
Arbitration Committee being more involved in BLP behavior issues, an issue that has been controversial by the eyes of the community, but rarely acted upon. The main reason why people go to ArbCom is when the community can't handle a dispute, or it gets out of control and it is used as a
838:
Well I don't have any experience in using these tools (see above). In the past, I have asked checkusers to look at suspicious editing by new accounts and oversighters to remove personal information that might be harmful to the subject, but that's it. There has been abuse of the tools in the past,
477:
It is clear that ArbCom accepted far fewer requests than in recent years for various, mostly positive reasons. The community for the most part figured out how to settle moderate disputes though more proper handling of RFCs and AN/I and the increased usage of motions to settle case requests before
386:
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
738:
Unfortunately, yes. There is a huge problem with vested contributors, especially when it regards to content contributors or people who edit the more continuous areas of the project. Friends and allies are created and certain editors takes advantage of the situation. Enemies are also created as a
568:
page (where most of my personal information was) and so forth. I'm not worried about the "ousting" and I know I could endure it without much damage psychologically as my public identity is well-known and I've been very open since with my issues (some of which I do regret) ever since I became the
70:
I am an administrator, I requested desysopping back in
September because I'm pretty much disgusted on how things are run on this project. Ignorance of BLP policies, helpless in editor retention, pure process wonkery and arbcom bickering over stupid things among them, thus it needs fresh blood. I
764:
It all depends on the circumstances and its really hard to answer that question. Usually there the behavior in question is primarily by one editor with other editors being frustrated and reacting poorly at the situation, which in that case the behavior of the main editor in question needs to be
1063:
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
651:
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
563:
I been the subject of real life outing and off-wiki harassment in the past, probably some of the worst ever on this project, mostly the work of one user. The harassment was quite severe, not limited to: the hacking of my Facebook page, hacking my old computer, attempted multiple hackings of my
968:
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?
539:
I likely won't request checkuser as it is too technical for my knowledge and too time consuming for this important job. We have plenty of capable checkusers in this project who does a fine job in tracking down abusive sockpuppetry. Oversight is a different story and I will likely request that
1093:
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 Knowledge (XXG), is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former
1325:
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
1326:(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.
558:
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?
495:
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?
987:
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.
889:(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)?
544:
and nothing else, such as child privacy, personal identifying information that might cause a risk to the subject or user in question and some copyright violations. I won't use the oversight tool however to hide the dubious history of an account name, childish vandalism,
804:
What is the relationship of the English Knowledge (XXG) (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Knowledge (XXG)? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
1073:
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?
317:
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.
877:
last resort for all parties involved. Usually BLP has been a massive headache in which the community haven't been able to properly solve and I feel that they should be more involved in guiding the community to a solution that satisfies both sides of the dispute.
1273:
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
601:
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.
71:
recently asked and received the tools back. I’m also not following the civility reform platform my fellow candidates are using. I feel if I get elected to ArbCom, it would be a welcome change that would help the community greatly and I hope you all agree.
301:
296:
996:- 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?
306:
1405:
977:
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?
352:
I been around since 2005 so I've seen every major change that happened in the project and adapted to it relatively quickly. During my nine years in the project on and off, I have dabbled in most of the administrative tasks, especially in
795:
as an administrator needs to follow the same policies as a regular user. There is no elitism in the project. But at the same time, we can't open a Pandora's box in proposing desysoppings for extremely minor issues in the context of
577:
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?
549:
and other criteria not listed in the policy. We have revertion deletion for those situations, or in the case of using oversight to remove dubious history of an somebody's account as others have done in the past, blatantly
893:
I've read the entire discussion read and I see no reason why I wouldn't be able to meet these requirements. I have some minor concerns about it, but that is a meta situation and not a situation regarding this project or
859:
Where I primarily edit, American sport topics isn't an area of much controversy. I've had content disputes in the past, but that was years ago. I probably have had more disputes concerning content when I participate in
88:
back in 2006 while I had my password hacked during a GRAWP attack and a undeclared clean start account that I quickly abandoned and ArbCom was aware. I will identify to the foundation if elected and glad to answer any
1410:
21:
1286:
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...?)
564:
Knowledge (XXG) account, the posting of old addresses and phone numbers, the public postings of nearly all my accounts on other websites, my general location, death threats, calling my old workplace to tell them
1362:
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.
569:
subject of that smear campaign. If they find out where I exactly live and come to my house then its a different story, but until then I don't see it impact my ability to serve as an administrator or arbitrator.
759:
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?
587:
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?
472:
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?
54:
Ah, ArbCom, where would the project be without you. My name is Jorge Aranda, I am 25 years old, a native of Miami, Florida and the owner of a small trading card business while recovering from recent thyroid
773:
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?
1256:(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.
958:
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.
751:
going to treat them different like I would with any other editor and punish them either more or less severely simply because they been in the project longer and are more well-known in the community.
946:
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.
1103:
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 Knowledge (XXG)?
158:
1304:
Is it something related to ArbCom? It's very inappropriate to answer questions not relevant to the committee and you should know better. If there is something I'm missing please let me know.
1214:
dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Knowledge (XXG)'s reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
17:
927:
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?
275:
505:
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?
1123:
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?
463:
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.
1150:
I am shocked that this question hasn’t been asked above, as I feel it is simple yet says a great deal about any candidate. No wrong answer to this question aside from “I don’t know”.
714:
They can also understand policies better with articles related to their subject, as editors of these projects can be considered experts of the subject but individual members do not
426:
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Knowledge (XXG), that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
686:
1184:
834:
What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Knowledge (XXG), and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
783:
180:
268:
993:- 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?
377:
processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
435:
as there is where I'm most actively involved in the project and would likely participate in the case as a witness instead and certain cases involving
261:
164:
1297:
734:
Does the English Knowledge (XXG) have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
1346:
1140:
1057:
I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter three were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.
1039:
914:
447:
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
204:
1064:
inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
726:, like one or two radical users from the WikiProject in question trying to force changes on articles without community or project consensus.
399:
like those in the impossibly long tree shaping and tea party cases, edit warriors, and my biggest err, BLP violators and people who love to
172:
1156:
As an arbitrator, what would you do? In other words, would you primarily work on cases, subcommittees, another arbitrator responsibility?
196:
1313:
886:
910:
418:
retired from the project, unable to get his tools back without a RFA. That is not how we want to treat our content contributors.
322:
1180:
722:
countless times, the best solution is to try to solve the issue with as little damage as possible. That usually results from
1383:
subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?
1223:
committee uses to accept a case. This is a borderline disruptive question and Spectre you should be ashamed of your self.
110:
188:
664:
679:; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.
348:
What skills and experience, both on Knowledge (XXG) and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
948:
Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
718:
any of those articles and if conflict arises between the Wikiproject and the greater community, like I have seen in
709:? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
676:
672:
668:
660:
656:
1263:
when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
705:
What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and
1175:
What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the
839:
particularly the oversight function, but right now there isn't anything that requires a change in those policies.
535:
userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
392:
bans and topic-bans in most cases, for those who clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Examples include
546:
81:
1035:
565:
541:
532:
528:
1373:
1015:
1219:
719:
626:
Could you give an example of a recent BLP situation that you feel was handled poorly by the community?
486:
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
907:
872:
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
283:
1176:
823:
118:
77:
787:
1218:
While I have nothing against LGBT people, I will not answer a question in which you are clearly
358:
413:
in proposing desysoppings for extremely minor factors or on-wiki behavior. To give an example,
1340:
1136:
1031:
999:- All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?
85:
740:
400:
396:
362:
452:
414:
104:
861:
744:
723:
715:
706:
694:
515:
436:
432:
405:
393:
354:
62:
1166:
904:
855:
disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
645:
635:
Should information about corporations be covered by a policy similar to BLP? If so, why?
374:
693:
First of all, I would have rejected the case and urged my fellow Arbs to do the same as
252:
1232:
792:
197:
165:
1399:
205:
48:
their wish to withdraw from the election; their name will not feature on the ballot.
1336:
1197:
1132:
1051:
173:
1296:
The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (
540:
permission. I would use the oversight tool in accordance to the rules listed in
410:
288:
100:
31:
181:
1353:
1274:
779:
325:, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.
189:
1406:
Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee Elections 2013 candidate statements
1316:). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
514:
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the
451:
Currently I'm disabled because of recent thyroid surgery because of my
321:
Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom
1312:
a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see
685:
What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case
527:
Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the
1411:
Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee Elections 2013 candidates
409:
a big deal once you get them, but we also don't want to open a
84:, neither of which been actively used recently. I also went by
605:
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
247:
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013
786:
back in 2006, or the recent removal of tools and ban of
739:
result and the matter usually ends up as a bloodbath in
1026:
240:
234:
228:
222:
214:
150:
142:
134:
126:
44:
687:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping
373:
What experience have you had with the Knowledge (XXG)
1206:
Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in
851:
disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any
937:step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
119:
784:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan
655:The questions are similar to those I asked in
1242:what you think are needed changes as an Arb?
387:generally influence your votes on sanctions?
269:
111:
8:
135:
1094:cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
328:
276:
262:
215:
94:Note updated 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
1300:). Is something to applaud or criticize?
652:answers would be appreciated regardless.
1084:workshop pages in making any decisions?
887:m:Access to nonpublic information policy
151:
143:
1298:List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
439:where I was once actively involved in.
1337:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
818:What is your definition of "outing"?
7:
127:
1277:of interest in framing your reply)
1210:, the massive embarrassment of the
284:Arbitration Committee Election 2013
885:Have you read the WMF proposal at
28:
1181:at the bottom of this draft page
1024:Please describe what happens in
323:selection and appointment policy
251:
1:
1347:06:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
1141:12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
1040:07:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
1018:candidate, for volunteering.
915:02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
516:biographies of living persons
359:three revert rule noticeboard
302:Questions for the candidate
1427:
920:Questions by Sven Manguard
619:Questions from Mark Arsten
1010:Questions by Gerda Arendt
333:Candidate has withdrawn.
566:Encyclopedia Dramatica
406:requests for adminship
307:Discuss this candidate
1374:User:Worm That Turned
1251:Question from Piotrus
1146:Question by Wizardman
862:articles for deletion
847:Have you been in any
433:articles for deletion
355:articles for deletion
1177:arbcom-l e-mail list
745:requests for comment
695:conflict of interest
597:Individual questions
394:conflict of interest
782:desysopping during
297:Candidate statement
42:This candidate has
40:Coordinator's note:
1185:in this discussion
375:dispute resolution
1393:
1392:
1257:
949:
611:|Q=Your question
401:gaming the system
341:General questions
315:
314:
1418:
1343:
1255:
1029:
947:
614:
609:#{{ACE Question
329:
278:
271:
264:
255:
248:
244:
217:
207:
199:
191:
183:
175:
167:
153:
145:
137:
129:
121:
113:
82:Secret (renamed)
78:Aranda56/Jaranda
76:My accounts are
47:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1377:
1357:
1345:
1341:
1305:
1253:
1236:
1231:Questions from
1224:
1201:
1170:
1148:
1113:and decisions?
1055:
1050:Questions from
1025:
1012:
922:
895:
878:
865:
840:
827:
811:
797:
766:
752:
727:
698:
649:
644:Questions from
621:
608:
599:
570:
551:
479:
456:
453:Graves' Disease
440:
419:
366:
343:
334:
311:
282:
210:
99:
43:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1424:
1422:
1414:
1413:
1408:
1398:
1397:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1380:
1376:
1372:Question from
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1360:
1356:
1352:Question from
1350:
1335:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1323:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1310:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1303:
1294:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1284:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1270:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1261:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1239:
1235:
1233:User:SirFozzie
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1217:
1204:
1200:
1196:Question from
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1179:, as proposed
1173:
1169:
1165:Question from
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1154:
1147:
1144:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1110:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1101:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1091:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1081:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1071:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1061:
1054:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1022:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1002:
1001:
1000:
997:
994:
985:
983:
982:
981:
975:
973:
972:
971:
965:
963:
962:
961:
956:
954:
953:
952:
944:
942:
941:
940:
934:
932:
931:
930:
925:
921:
918:
901:
899:
898:
897:
896:
892:
883:
881:
880:
879:
875:
870:
868:
867:
866:
858:
845:
843:
842:
841:
837:
832:
830:
829:
828:
821:
816:
814:
813:
812:
808:
802:
800:
799:
798:
776:
771:
769:
768:
767:
763:
757:
755:
754:
753:
737:
732:
730:
729:
728:
712:
703:
701:
700:
699:
692:
683:
648:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
633:
631:
630:
629:
624:
620:
617:
616:
612:
610:
598:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
585:
583:
582:
581:
575:
573:
572:
571:
562:
556:
554:
553:
552:
538:
525:
523:
522:
521:
512:
510:
509:
508:
503:
501:
500:
499:
493:
491:
490:
489:
484:
482:
481:
480:
476:
470:
468:
467:
466:
461:
459:
458:
457:
450:
445:
443:
442:
441:
429:
424:
422:
421:
420:
390:
384:
382:
381:
380:
371:
369:
368:
367:
351:
346:
342:
339:
336:
335:
332:
327:
313:
312:
310:
309:
304:
299:
293:
292:
281:
280:
273:
266:
258:
256:
246:
245:
209:
91:
90:
73:
72:
67:
66:
57:
56:
51:
50:
34:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1423:
1412:
1409:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1401:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1349:
1348:
1344:
1338:
1334:Thank you, --
1328:
1327:
1324:
1322:
1318:
1317:
1315:
1311:
1309:
1302:
1301:
1299:
1295:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1285:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1276:
1271:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1262:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1250:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1221:
1216:
1215:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1189:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1172:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1158:
1157:
1155:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1145:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1125:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1102:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1023:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1017:
1009:
1003:
998:
995:
992:
991:
990:
989:
986:
984:
980:
979:
976:
974:
970:
969:
966:
964:
960:
959:
957:
955:
951:
950:
945:
943:
939:
938:
935:
933:
929:
928:
926:
924:
923:
919:
917:
916:
913:
912:
909:
906:
891:
890:
888:
884:
882:
874:
873:
871:
869:
863:
857:
856:
854:
850:
846:
844:
836:
835:
833:
831:
825:
820:
819:
817:
815:
807:
806:
803:
801:
794:
789:
788:Phil Sandifer
785:
781:
775:
774:
772:
770:
762:
761:
758:
756:
750:
746:
742:
736:
735:
733:
731:
725:
721:
717:
711:
710:
708:
704:
702:
696:
691:
690:
688:
684:
682:
681:
680:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
653:
647:
643:
637:
636:
634:
632:
628:
627:
625:
623:
622:
618:
615:
606:
603:
596:
590:
589:
586:
584:
580:
579:
576:
574:
567:
561:
560:
557:
555:
550:unacceptable.
548:
547:WP:CLEANSTART
543:
537:
536:
534:
530:
526:
524:
520:
519:
517:
513:
511:
507:
506:
504:
502:
498:
497:
494:
492:
488:
487:
485:
483:
475:
474:
471:
469:
465:
464:
462:
460:
454:
449:
448:
446:
444:
438:
434:
428:
427:
425:
423:
416:
412:
407:
402:
398:
395:
389:
388:
385:
383:
379:
378:
376:
372:
370:
364:
360:
356:
350:
349:
347:
345:
344:
340:
338:
337:
331:
330:
326:
324:
319:
308:
305:
303:
300:
298:
295:
294:
291:
290:
285:
279:
274:
272:
267:
265:
260:
259:
257:
254:
250:
249:
242:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
213:
208:
203:
200:
195:
192:
187:
184:
179:
176:
171:
168:
163:
160:
157:
154:
149:
146:
141:
138:
133:
130:
125:
122:
117:
114:
109:
106:
102:
98:
97:
96:
95:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
69:
68:
64:
59:
58:
53:
52:
49:
46:
41:
37:
36:
33:
30:
23:
19:
1333:
1254:
1220:too involved
1211:
1207:
1149:
1130:
1056:
1032:Gerda Arendt
1013:
903:
900:
852:
848:
748:
654:
650:
607:
604:
600:
542:WP:OVERSIGHT
397:NPOV pushers
320:
316:
287:
237:
231:
225:
219:
211:
201:
193:
185:
177:
169:
161:
155:
147:
139:
131:
123:
115:
107:
93:
92:
86:Moneyballing
39:
38:
1131:Thank you.
1014:Thank you,
902:Thank you.
765:questioned.
720:WP:BASEBALL
415:John Carter
411:pandora box
286:candidate:
136:target logs
1400:Categories
1354:User:MONGO
1342:reply here
1167:Tryptofish
646:Rschen7754
431:involving
22:Candidates
1027:this diff
824:WP:OUTING
793:Ironholds
533:oversight
529:checkuser
235:deletions
198:checkuser
144:block log
89:question.
45:expressed
1208:Sexology
1016:precious
518:policy?
229:protects
112:contribs
55:surgery.
20: |
1212:Manning
1198:Sceptre
1133:Collect
1052:Collect
894:myself.
853:content
849:content
796:things.
741:WP:AN/I
363:WP:AN/I
724:WP:OWN
716:WP:OWN
707:WP:OWN
675:, and
613:|A=}}
289:Secret
223:blocks
216:rights
101:Secret
32:Secret
780:MONGO
241:moves
206:socks
120:count
16:<
1314:here
1275:this
1183:and
1137:talk
1036:talk
1030:. --
911:7754
908:chen
822:Per
677:2012
673:2011
669:2010
665:2009
661:2008
657:2007
531:and
361:and
159:rfas
128:logs
105:talk
80:and
63:BLPs
778:of
749:not
743:or
437:IRC
190:lta
182:rfc
174:arb
166:rfb
1402::
1187:?
1139:)
1038:)
905:Rs
689:?
671:,
667:,
663:,
659:,
152:lu
1339:|
1135:(
1034:(
277:e
270:t
263:v
243:)
238:·
232:·
226:·
220:·
212:·
202:·
194:·
186:·
178:·
170:·
162:·
156:·
148:·
140:·
132:·
124:·
116:·
108:·
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
