694:
have their own schedules and obligations and vacations to deal with as well. Such concessions also run the risk of parties using absences as a tactic to avoid sanctions, as has frequently happened on
Knowledge (XXG). Arbitration cases usually involve editors who have a long tenure on Knowledge (XXG), so in most cases finding time to write out a thousand words about something they are intimately familiar with is not an unreasonable thing to expect of them. Conflicts encourage verbosity and grandstanding, and the word limits are necessary to counteract that. I don't think it's unreasonable to grant extensions on a case by case basis, and responding to evidence from multiple parties seems like a reasonable scenario for granting such an extension, depending on the nature of the response and whether someone intends to post just diffs or a lengthy narrative rebuttal.
1170:'s forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Knowledge (XXG) editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Knowledge (XXG) editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of
614:
forced a topic ban in the first place. I am not opposed to ignoring a minor, harmless violation, but neither do I generally object to enforcing a valid ban when that ban is violated. What is the alternative? Do we have a long discussion about every violation and debate whether or not this particular comment is harmless? Would this not encourage people to violate their bans and cause this kind of disruption? What about the people who have topic bans but do not have a vocal contingent of supporters? I cannot muster outrage over a popular editor blocked for such a comment while the same people are not outraged over less popular editors blocked in exactly the same circumstances.
322:
in to the debate: that
Arbitration Panel members should regularly put their heads together with policymakers to try and design the system to be better in the long run. IMHO - I feel like a fair number of my edits get reverted without just cause, but there is no obvious way to get help from Wiki, and I don't have the time to engage with the reverters, so I just let it go. This is not what we want. We need to make conflict resolution easy, and that conflict resolution must be supervised. There are too many people out there who believe they own articles, or want to re-inforce their world view or personal agenda. Tx
1377:
redirect spam, including building walled gardens and violation of WP guidelines concerning advocacy in editing. This led to accusations of a double standard for admins and regular editors. (If a non-admin had done the same, there could be no such easy dismissal as we don't have tools to resign). Neelix never acknowledged or agreed to stop any of this behavior, simply (eventually) apologized for the redirects only and then later resigned with no further comment. There was significant support for at least a topic ban at the ANI. Do you believe a topic ban or other measure should have been applied in this case?
1651:
implications. With fairly extensive discussion and multiple requests to oversight the information, the decision was made not to oversight the information with the stated reason being that gender does not explicitly fall under any of the
English Knowledge (XXG)'s oversight criteria. In a similar situation, would you support either interpreting the oversight criteria more broadly in general, IAR oversighting a situation like this, rewriting the oversight criteria to be more inclusive, or would you choose to not oversight the information in question? (As background, according to the
429:
material. We forbid spamming, legal threats, and posting private information about others. It is a vital and cherished part of free speech that one can say whatever you want about politicians, for example, but if you speak your mind about those politicians here on
Knowledge (XXG), your comments will quickly be deleted. It is incomprehensible to me that one can accept all these restrictions and still argue that being terrible to other editors is somehow an important component of your personal freedom.
860:, their bugbear, a topic or personality type that affects them to the point where they can't help but act inappropriately. I'm a firm believer in wikibreaks and walking away from overheated editing conflicts, and if people can't figure out when to do that on their own, in those situations it is in the best interests of those editors and the encyclopedia that we keep them away from those topics while allowing them to work productively on others.
234:
469:. The statement released following the GamerGate case was especially problematic and was perceived by many as a justification for the decision instead of an explanation. Despite all of this, I am in favor of a limited engagement with the press on a strictly explanatory basis when absolutely necessary, perhaps with short, targeted statements in FAQ form that favor concise, unambiguous factual points over lengthy narratives.
672:
contact to be able to judge this particular situation. In general, I think that editors throw around "involvement" far too much and in ways that are not consistent with the actual policy. For example, I was recently called an "involved" party for asking editors to provide diffs to support their arguments in a noticeboard discussion. A single comment usually does not constitute involvement or indicate partiality.
492:
academic and cultural institutions. This is perhaps causing some angst that the community and its interactions may become "professionalized" to the exclusion of established editors. Do you feel this fear is warranted? How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on
Knowledge (XXG) with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?
1617:
sought to advise this editor on why they were blocked but struggle to get the editor to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how
Knowledge (XXG) works with those who suffer from such disorders. This is an open ended, and deliberately vague, question that will no doubt be difficult to answer, but is more for me, and presumably other editors, to get a grasp of your thoughts.
1186:(XXG) nor the Wikimedia Foundation has developed any systematic means of dealing with this issue. The Committee can't help you, the Foundation won't help you, the police will ignore you, and getting a lawyer presents a significant financial obstacle. Given these circumstances, I could not in good conscience sanction an editor for seeking assistance against her harasser.
72:
that is for editors to acknowledge their mistakes and strive to do better, instead of loudly insisting that disruption is the correct path. A perfect candidate who offends no one and makes no errors avoids controversial problems, and we need people willing to attempt to solve those problems and risk making mistakes to do so, instead of standing by doing nothing.
1284:*I have no knowledge of what other users may have or have not said to one another about me or anything else, so I cannot attest to the accuracy of those statements. I doubt their accuracy because I hope that other administrators do not divulge what was said in private conversations with editors; certainly I will not do so, here or elsewhere.
1550:, ArbCom implemented a "500/30" limit on edits to the Palestine-Israel (the 3rd topic space in which this remedy has been used). What are the positives & negatives of this remedy as written? Would a more technical/formal implementation (akin to semi-protection) be an improvement? What other improvements, if any, might be made?
1148:
Bar. The Bar account on
Knowledge (XXG) is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Knowledge (XXG) account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of
522:
read articles, and those decisions should be governed by the consensus of the wider community. There should be an infobox in all opera articles or an infobox in none, or clear rules describing when they are and are not acceptable. Until then, we are left with half-measures and bitter conflicts on obscure articles.
996:
larger context. I also believe there is too much of a focus on procedure and legalistic policy hairsplitting, which is why you get decisions which seem reasonable when looking at them from strictly a policy perspective, but are viewed by non-Wikipedians as bizarre and inconsistent with normal human expectations.
425:
speech they want and be whatever they want to be, even if that means indulging negative aspects of themselves. But they should not be able to indulge themselves in this way on every single part of the
Internet, and Knowledge (XXG) is under no obligation to provide a platform for this negative behavior.
1616:
in the past. An editor who self identifies as having a mental disability or disorder has been indefinitely blocked for a variety of violations, take your pick of edit warring, NPA, disruption, CIR, POINT, Godwin's etc, and is now seeking to return to editing. Quite a few members of the community have
1185:
That said, this may be one of the few times. Usually outing is part of a campaign of harassment, but here a harassment victim was seeking assistance against her harasser. A harassment victim is, in most cases, completely on their own. It is shameful that in the last fifteen years neither
Knowledge
1165:
User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her
Knowledge (XXG) username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Knowledge (XXG)." She looks into the account that has uploaded
872:
in some way. At one time, a remedy call a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this
460:
Dealing with the press is always problematic, especially for non-professionals for whom this is not their primary responsibility. This is compounded by the fact that the English-language press has little experience with or knowledge of the inner workings of Knowledge (XXG), a subject I discussed at
428:
Knowledge (XXG) is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a maximum free speech zone. We have long recognized that you cannot say whatever you want here. We forbid offensive and libelous speech directed at living individuals. We forbid using pages as a forum for non-Knowledge (XXG) opinions and
1690:
results in less willingness to report problems and mindless application of punishment regardless of circumstances, scale, intention, or subsequent actions (e.g., realizing on your own that you made a mistake and apologizing). Do you believe that results like these will improve the English Knowledge
1428:
You would "Push for the Committee to receive professional training in mediation and harassment, funded by a WMF grant." Again, could you put some flesh on the bones of this idea, especially why you feel it should be the Committee that gets the training on harassment when most cases of harassment are
1390:
Well done on putting your name forward. My questions are on your election statement. I like the ideas, but the necessity of keeping election statements short means that your priorities are expressed perhaps more as vote-seeking sound bites than the detailed thoughts of a candidate for the subtle and
1304:
The real disruption currently is not some edit war on an obscure article. It's the sickening display of schadenfreude from Gamergate forums, which purposely and openly target articles that Ryulong is thought to have an attachment to. Not satisfied with him being banned for nearly a year, they seek
1300:
The banned user in question is Ryulong. I think it is in the best interests of both himself and the encyclopedia that he no longer concern himself with what happens on Knowledge (XXG). I think Ryulong is a well-intentioned editor, but he has acted in very disruptive ways and should not be editing
1014:
Can you please distinguish between "harassment" and legitimate inquiries into the background of suspicious editors? Do you believe that such inquiries should only be limited to SPI? If so, what do you advise long-term editors with a good feel for behavioral patterns to do about questionable editors
995:
Instead of providing a laundry list of disagreements, I will just say that I think most of the missteps that the Committee have made appear to come from a myopic focus on the suboptimal behavior of individual editors and an unwillingness to deal with systemic issues and to place those behaviors in a
947:
Yes. Can't say how successful I've been at it in the aggregate over the years, but I always try to resolve them in the best interests of the encyclopedia and all parties involved, even if those parties are determined to be unhappy about the situation. I also have a number of years of experience as
738:
Hi, I'm Dave, I was on Arbcom between 2013 and 2014. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side"
671:
As I discussed in response to Gerda Arendt's question #2, single comments do not occur in a vacuum. Context is important and necessary to fully understanding the situation, so I would have to examine the entire conversation and know who the editors in question were and whether or not they had prior
657:
No outcome is inevitable and Arbitrators have an obligation to review the evidence without a preordained outcome in mind. But for a case to get to the Committee, generally a lot has to happen - noticeboard discussions, administrative involvement, etc. - and if the conflict has gone through that and
491:
One last question. Knowledge (XXG) relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Knowledge (XXG) in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals from
441:
It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing. What is the line between incivility and harassment? How much does incivility, when it doesn't cross the line into harassment, affect our ability to retain editors, including but not limited to its effects on the
1273:
I have redacted your question because you used it to level a serious accusation against another editor, and I will not allow you to use this well-trafficked space to cast aspersions in this manner. If anyone thinks an editor is a sockpuppet of a banned user, the proper approach is to file a report
477:
This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press, of no more than a few paragraphs, on the circumstances leading
415:
Often free speech is invoked in defense of incivility. But one can have a strong commitment to free speech while simultaneously realizing that one needs to act in an appropriate manner towards other people in certain situations. No one thinks that it is incompatible with free speech to be unable
321:
Thanks for taking this on. Although I totally agree that the cttee must adhere to Wikimedia policy, and is set up to enforce, or enact policy, not make it, I do believe that the "troops in the trenches" are the best people to involve in policy development. I hope if you get elected you can add this
71:
I am not the perfect editor or candidate. A decade is a long time, and it is full of many examples where I could have acted better or made a better decision. Likewise, I do not demand perfection of other editors nor would I demand it of parties before the Committee. I only ask what I try to do, and
1346:
Obviously, I disagree. I believe that voters who have the best interests of Knowledge (XXG) in mind will know that whatever I do while serving on the Committee will also be with those best interests in mind, even if they disagree with my positions or choices. However people vote and for whatever
1147:
User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on Knowledge (XXG) with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Knowledge (XXG) user
1080:
The Committee, or any group, benefits from a variety of perspectives, and the perspective of a non-administrator would be valuable. Most Arbitrators and potential Arbitrators are long-term administrators like myself, and it's easy for us to forget what it's like to be a editor without the tools.
753:
article written about me for merely suggesting that one (apparently well-connected, as it turns out) GG troll be blocked, for once again Keeping The Truth Out of Knowledge (XXG). So you might say I’m overqualified in this respect. If nothing else, it’s strengthened my resolve to do what I can to
693:
Reasonable concessions and accommodations should be made to editors whenever possible, but an Arbitration case is a long-running matter that involves multiple parties and is scheduled in advance. All of this can't come to a halt at a moment's notice because all of those other people involved also
666:
If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any
613:
If you are topic banned from something, you generally had to do a lot of work to get there. So if you make an innocuous comment in violation of that ban, there were many more not so innocuous comments that came before that. Let’s not forget the context of such incidents or the disruptions that
525:
I do not understand why the issue of infoboxes has sparked such contentious debates. I studied metadata in graduate school and I recall it being a pretty dry subject. The fact that this issue has caused such fervor among a small minority means the larger community needs to resolve this matter.
521:
In general, I do not believe that a small number of editors should be able to carve out a separate consensus in a corner of Knowledge (XXG) on an issue that affects a wide number of articles. This only encourages proxy battles on obscure articles over issues that should be decided on more widely
451:
Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles? For example, do you think that releasing
424:
The fact that Knowledge (XXG) is on the Internet does not excuse it from normal human mores of behavior. Many of the Internet’s most avid users are strong proponents of free speech, and I think one of the most positive aspects of the Internet is that people can indulge in almost whatever kind of
1507:
The en.Knowledge (XXG) community has been likened to that of a gaol (US:prison), with members of various gangs aggressively supporting each other in disputes, which are policed by trusted inmates. Do you agree with this view? If so, why so? If not, why not? To what extent are the behaviours which
1442:
You would "Push to expand the Committee to properly handle the workload." Because you feel "The demands on the Committee members are high, often leading early departure." What do you see as the advantages and problems with increasing the size of the Committee? Why do you consider increasing the
1181:
Outing is not appropriate. There needs to be a bright line here, to protect all Knowledge (XXG) editors. Outing is frequently presented with a high-minded justification, but there is seldom an appropriate justification for personalizing a dispute and bringing potential harm to a person in this
818:
It appears that the issue here isn't who can come up with the best idea to deal with this, but getting consensus for an appropriate solution among either the committee or the community. Transferring it to the functionaries themselves doesn't seem like the right idea for reasons of transparency -
382:
has been a crash course in project and personnel management for me, and while I’m very happy with the work that we’ve done, along the way I’ve discovered that some of these tasks don’t mesh well with my skill set and have left less and less times for the tasks that do. Well before I decided to
906:
Yes, I do, and I've logged several myself as Discretionary Sanctions. They can be useful to document cases of boundary pushing and other behavior that is part of a long-term pattern when the individual act isn't something that requires a ban or block. However, they should not be used to merely
41:
The most important thing we can do on Knowledge (XXG) is to facilitate content creation. That means content creation by everyone, regardless of who they are or how much experience they have as an editor. Issues such as harassment and civility are not, as some would have it, a necessary part of
1156:
The appropriate way to handle this would be to email the Committee; the Committee already regularly receives private and sensitive evidence that shouldn't be posted on Knowledge (XXG). We should not allow outing on the encyclopedia, but we should also not encourage trolling by pretending these
1053:
if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental
855:
The key difference is whether an editor's violations affect the encyclopedia as a whole or they are limited to a particular topic, interactions with a particular editor or editors, or something else of smaller scope. The seriousness of the offence must be taken into consideration as well. For
835:
I guess this is a moot point now that BASC is no more. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of specific subcommittees like BASC and AUSC, the subcommittee model is probably going to be the future of the Committee. There is always - and probably should be - resistance to more bureaucracy, but the
75:
Mandatory declarations: I will comply with all policies for dealing with non-public data and have already signed a confidentiality agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation to do so as part of my work with The Knowledge (XXG) Library. I do not recall ever doing any editing with another account.
45:
The Committee has a difficult job. While it is filled with well-meaning individuals, collectively they have favored narrow decisions that focus on the behavior of a few editors while ignoring systemic issues plaguing Knowledge (XXG) and prioritize policy compliance over normal expectations of
1376:
Many editors were unhappy with the results of the recent Neelix fiasco, in which the AC closed the case as soon as Neelix resigned as an admin, despite the fact that many of the issues brought up in the evidence page had nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of administrative tools or even his
387:
can be more effective if I step back to focus on the tasks I excel at and give other people a chance to shine at the tasks I do not. In the short term, that means taking a leave of absence from the post of Editor in Chief. I will continue to participate in a minor way with some writing and
1650:
Recently a situation came up where the gender of an editor, which had not been disclosed by the editor anywhere on-wiki, was posted on several pages. The gender of the editor given the nature of their background is a potentially quite sensitive piece of information, with potential real-life
743:
Unfortunately, I would bring a wealth of experience with this to the Committee. I have lost track of the number of times I’ve been the victim of these sorts of behaviors, on and offsite. After I blocked a minor political operative for his abominable behavior on the article of some obscure
67:
I have been a Knowledge (XXG) editor for eleven years and an administrator for ten. I have created more than a thousand articles and I have nearly seventy thousand edits. Offline, I am a librarian and professor at a mid-sized university in the US. Knowledge (XXG) is the focus of my academic
748:
from scratch many years ago. For this, I have earned the lifelong ire of the JFK conspiracy crowd as The Guy Who Is Keeping The Truth Out of Knowledge (XXG), and I’ve been the subject of many blog posts, web pages (one of which has my face next to a Nazi flag) and even radio shows from the
1433:
The Committee makes high-profile decisions that affect the entire encyclopedia, the Committee oversees the appropriate standards of behavior for administrators, and the Committee leads (or should lead) by example. We do not yet have a workable way to scale harassment training for 1,332
926:
Yes. It's always useful to hash out potential solutions before they are formally voted on and doing it publicly is good for transparency. There should be clearer rules about participation and clerks should keep a lid on the worst of it; the workshop of the GamerGate case was a
377:
and maintaining a high level of quality is incredibly time consuming. I don’t think readers realize the amount of work that is required behind the scenes, and given our recent personnel shortage, more and more tasks have fallen on fewer people, including myself. Publishing the
684:
from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of
1301:
Knowledge (XXG). If there are any editors who are proxy editing on his behalf, they should not do so, because they should adhere to policy and because they do Ryulong no favors by allowing him to remain attached to Knowledge (XXG), when he really needs to make a clean break.
766:
It can and it should. The Committee cannot set policy, but it can affirm that certain policies and principles should be enforced, setting an example for the rest of the community and empowering administrators and editors who are attacked for attempting to enforce such
432:
Civility, in fact, maximizes free speech for the most number of people and furthers Knowledge (XXG)'s mission of creating an encyclopedia. The atmosphere of collaborative editing is only improved when more editors feel free to contribute without being attacked or
1341:
You have been considered a "hasten the day" candidate. How does it feel knowing that some of your voters are not voting because they approve of your policies, but because they believe you are so destructive that your election to ArbCom will harm the project?
282:
277:
606:
1166:
these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Knowledge (XXG) User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to
744:
officeholder, he conducted a multi-year campaign of sometimes daily abuse and vandalism, cheered on by Knowledge (XXG) Review. (They did delete his death threat, so that was nice.) One of the achievements I’m proudest of is rewriting the article
287:
1472:
What is your take on bullying that happens on Knowledge (XXG)? What would you think of stronger guidelines about bullying behaviors, and an anti-bullying task force made up of volunteers as a way to curb long-term problematic bullying behaviors?
526:
The Committee cannot compel them to do this, but editors who are involved in these battles should feel some obligation to direct their energies towards RFCs and other methods of gauging widespread consensus and hammering out potential policies.
1451:. Reducing the workload and shifting responsibilities elsewhere - noticeboards, administrators, etc. - is a good idea, but we shouldn't pretend the workload won't keep increasing as the encyclopedia and the community gets larger and larger.
877:
I'm open to new approaches to this, but what we really need here is a commitment to the rules and principles that we have, from both the Committee and administrators, instead of constantly excusing and dismissing long-term problems in this
1536:
We see regular use of WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK to justify indefinite blocks of new editors entering contentious topic spaces, without those editors being explicitly linked to banned accounts. Is this use justified? If so, why so? If not, why not?
814:, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?
49:
Offline, people are energized and optimistic about the possibilities of Knowledge (XXG). Online, the community is fractious and the environment often toxic, exacerbated by the failure to address these issues head-on. Enough is enough.
420:
or workplace. You can’t discuss your sexual exploits over Thanksgiving dinner (or perhaps you can, if you have an interesting family) and you can’t insult or sexually harass your coworkers. Knowledge (XXG) should be no different.
392:
and the rest of the Editorial Board. In the long term, I plan to continue a lower level of participation while we recruit more personnel and step down entirely from the role of Editor in Chief once a suitable replacement is
1054:
disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I
819:
functionaries investigating themselves seems like an idea designed to generate conspiracy theories - and if they aren't on board with the idea, it will only be dumping the responsibility for solving it on someone else.
1719:
21:
856:
example, it would have been absurd to merely topic ban Wifione from articles about higher education in India. Many editors are perfectly capable of acting appropriately in most topic areas, but everyone has their
966:
In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred?
529:
In this particular discussion, I see mostly squabbling, proxy warring, and lashing out based on pre-existing grudges and little discussion based on policy, style guidelines, or reasoning. As a result, I would
1547:
1517:
Do you believe that our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution? If so, is this a good or bad thing? If bad, what role should ArbCom play in addressing this?
479:
482:. Write that primer below. Do not cover or express an opinion on the proposed or actual decision, but concentrate on how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.
46:
behavior in extraordinary circumstances. The Committee cannot create policy, but it can use the matters before it to address systemic issues, which many parts of the community are demanding it do.
831:
exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?
139:
894:
Yes, it probably does. Even if it does not, we should guard against it. The key is to view the roles of editor and administrator separately and judge a party's conduct by the standards of each.
887:
1023:
or to a noticeboard. Hounding these users around the encyclopedia, plotting against them in off-wiki forums, and attempting to hijack a prominent on-wiki forum to attack them is harassment.
453:
17:
256:
782:
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!
1327:
Should people who have undergone frequent and/or serious disciplinary action such as desysopping or numerous blocks be allowed to apply for bureaucratic placements in Knowledge (XXG)?
462:
762:
Some people believe that Arbcom should lead the community on certain issues. Do you believe there are issues that Arbcom should lead on, and what form should that leadership take?
548:
Good thoughts, thank you. However, "There should be an infobox in all opera articles or an infobox in none" doesn't work, unless we have a bot that makes infoboxes for all operas.
514:
Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at
417:
1482:
What is the meaning of being known as a "hasten the day" candidate? I've heard this phrase around but i don't know what it means. And do you consider yourself one? Thanks.
1019:
I think we have a perfect example with the "question" below by Snowflakw and sundry. A legitimate inquiry into the background of a suspicious editor can be brought to
805:. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle it. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the
1447:
Because the solutions of 2004 are not the solutions we need to deal with the problems of 2016. We have millions more articles and thousands more editors; the old way
1081:
For all its many, many flaws, RFA is an incredibly thorough vetting, so candidates who are not administrators have not been vetted as well as administrators have been.
1686:
You've said that you want "zero tolerance for harassment". Are you familiar with the widespread criticism of that approach in the real world? In the real world,
749:
conspiracy press. A prominent conspiracy author even alleged that I had connections to the conspirators. And more recently, there was GamerGate. I even had a
161:
249:
1580:
Would you be prepared to recuse from 1/3rd of cases, and encourage other Arbs to do likewise, so that each case might be addressed faster, and by fewer Arbs?
1062:. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.
653:
presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
658:
still has to go before the Committee, it seems likely that the conflict is so intractable or the behavior so egregious that sanctions will be the result.
1571:
on new editors. Administrators have failed to address this editor's behaviour; WP:AE has failed to address the editor's behaviour. What should be done?
242:
145:
1700:
1668:
1626:
1592:
1403:
1216:
1117:
1041:
Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are
989:
334:
You wrote: "...and strive to do better, instead of loudly insisting that disruption is the correct path." Can you explain what do you mean with
1275:
1020:
185:
1297:
is, but I believe it may be some sort of "film", which is a series of images when shown rapidly in sequence creates the illusion of movement.
153:
1305:
to hound him until the end of his days, like the Furies tormenting Orestes. Since your account is part of that effort, I've blocked it as
1108:
63:
Push to expand the Committee to properly handle the workload. The demands on the Committee members are high, often leading early departure.
1434:
administrators. We can certainly manage it for fifteen people. It's all about using your resources where they will have the most impact.
1152:
and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Knowledge (XXG) account?
1141:. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.
586:
1411:
Your priority is to "Demand zero tolerance for harassment". You will be aware that the cases that come before ArbCom would not involve
1331:
I don't think there should be a rule against it. Voters are capable of judging a block log or past disciplinary action for themselves.
383:
run, we started working on a reorganization plan to restructure the work behind the scenes and recruit more contributors. I think the
177:
585:
for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement (
590:
91:
1527:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?
716:
a policy ? Do you believe that ArbCom can sanction undisclosed paid editors if there is evidence that they violated TOU ?
357:
Thanks for putting forward your candidacy. I'm just wondering how you'll handle the time and other conflicts with the
169:
981:
703:
680:
Are arbitrators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other
1656:
1288:
1049:
or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in
1115:
851:
What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
1189:
None of this, of course, has any bearing on whether or not this editor's other behavior justified a site ban.
60:
Push for the Committee to receive professional training in mediation and harassment, funded by a WMF grant.
1696:
1664:
1559:
A hypothetical editor, involved in a contentious topic space, regularly derails Talk page discussion with
1212:
552:
798:
729:
1257:
1058:
count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force
99:
1318:
1306:
1182:
matter, and condoning justifications for violating this policy only encourages others to violate it.
264:
1622:
1100:
1032:
575:
An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that
1416:
1171:
1149:
1138:
1498:
Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.
1400:
1066:
I am a straight male Hispanic able-bodied middle class citizen and resident of the United States.
1059:
1005:
389:
85:
1560:
1243:
First part is a simple yes/no: Is there anything in the above summary you know to be inaccurate?
971:
957:
869:
531:
1692:
1660:
1641:
1208:
745:
582:
502:
1655:, the triumvirate of date of birth, zip code, and gender are sufficient to uniquely identify
828:
806:
794:
628:
All good thoughts, however no answer to my question: suggestions for a different style of AE.
558:
became available in 2013, and normal humans tried to implement it, as in this case. Compare
1613:
1568:
943:
Do you have any experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?
388:
copyediting, but major decisions and anything to do with election coverage will be left to
1367:
1256:
Have you seen this movie and how seriously should Knowledge (XXG) treat violations of the
1131:
976:
936:
776:
348:
1609:
1564:
802:
233:
178:
146:
1687:
1618:
1599:
1448:
1167:
1076:
Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.
402:
42:
content creation, but inhibit content creation by many current and potential editors.
186:
1713:
1393:
1252:
Second part I'd appreciate some elaboration: The page in question concerns the movie
1096:
456:, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they be made more effective?
269:
154:
81:
31:
1608:
This is a hypothetical that is somewhat based on real threads that have occurred on
1415:
cases of harassment (the obvious cases can be dealt with by the community under the
1463:
640:
327:
902:
Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
162:
1050:
1046:
907:
express the Committee's disagreement with actions taken by parties before them.
713:
1589:
1548:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Remedies
1492:
1281:
As for the rest, here are some responses to the various questions you posed:
1042:
559:
170:
1207:
How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--
1391:
demanding role of a Committee member. This is your opportunity to expand.
720:
The Terms of Use have the force of policy and can be enforced accordingly.
1443:
Committee size is more important than decreasing the Committee workload?
373:
plays a vital and necessary role in the community . But publishing the
754:
prevent other editors from being the victims of this kind of harassment.
411:
In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?
810:
1563:
on the subject, anecdotes of their off-Wiki involvement in the topic,
1357:
Should ArbCom have more or less power in dealing with administration?
589:) to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I
607:
The edit was unproblematic and actually made Knowledge (XXG) better.
1137:
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on
595:
1501:
Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.
365:
I’m very proud of the work my colleagues and I have done on the
1720:
Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 candidates
1652:
1015:
when there is no clear candidate for who the master might be?
836:
workload has long been too large for an unstructured approach.
797:
was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our
667:
way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?
601:
303:
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
228:
1429:
dealt with (adequately or not!) by admins on the front line?
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015
1419:
policy). Could you outline in more detail what you mean?
1567:
for exclusion of material, "hatting" of discussions, and
739:
of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?
1174:
as part of their justification for site banning Alice?
922:
Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
577:
515:
221:
215:
209:
203:
195:
131:
123:
115:
107:
1270:
Hello and welcome to Knowledge (XXG), brand new user.
1508:
lead to this view enabled by AN/I, AE & ArbCom?
100:
1347:
reason they do so is on their conscience, not mine.
581:. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of
578:he creates half of his featured content with women
92:
948:a classroom teacher, so that sometimes helps.
250:
116:
8:
416:to say whatever you want, whenever you want
196:
1178:Why pretend this isn't about Lightbreather?
53:Were I to serve, my priorities will be to:
1588:Many thanks in advance for any answers. -
257:
243:
132:
124:
1565:epistemological first principle reasoning
1276:Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations
1021:Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations
534:some editors and close it “no consensus”.
1157:accounts aren't exactly what they are.
338:? Please, offer some example. Thanks.
108:
599:'s "no foul, play on" more often, or
57:Demand zero tolerance for harassment.
7:
516:Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?
452:statements, such as been done once
265:Arbitration Committee Election 2015
369:over the last year. I think the
28:
870:violations of the civility policy
1230:Question by Snowflakw and sundry
508:Thank you for stepping forward!
232:
682:substantial reasons for absence
461:my WikiConference panel and in
317:Questions from Billyshiverstick
890:exists? How would you fix it?
1:
1627:02:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
1593:15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1404:19:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
1217:19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
990:20:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1701:20:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
1669:02:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
1118:01:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
868:Nearly every case involves
283:Questions for the candidate
1736:
1679:Question from WhatamIdoing
844:Current Disputes and Cases
1657:87% of American citizens.
480:Arbitration enforcement 2
886:Do you believe that the
829:Ban Appeals Subcommittee
1386:Questions from SilkTork
1095:Thanks for responding,
702:Optional Question from
704:Pharaoh of the Wizards
288:Discuss this candidate
1293:*I have no idea what
1200:Question by MĂĽdigkeit
649:Can a case be opened
591:offered some thoughts
478:to the current case
299:Individual questions
888:Super Mario Problem
278:Candidate statement
1254:Super Hero Taisen.
1060:affirmative action
1006:User:Beyond My Ken
795:Audit Subcommittee
454:on a previous case
1295:Super Hero Taisen
746:Lee Harvey Oswald
593:, wishing to see
587:"not a fun place"
583:The Metamorphosis
309:|Q=Your question
296:
295:
1727:
1396:
1113:
1106:
986:
984:
979:
974:
915:Insider Baseball
730:Worm That Turned
604:
598:
580:
557:
551:
418:in the classroom
312:
307:#{{ACE Question
259:
252:
245:
236:
229:
225:
198:
188:
180:
172:
164:
156:
148:
134:
126:
118:
110:
102:
94:
1735:
1734:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1710:
1709:
1681:
1645:
1603:
1496:
1491:Questions from
1467:
1462:Questions from
1452:
1435:
1394:
1388:
1371:
1368:User:Wikimandia
1348:
1332:
1322:
1310:
1289:WP:WRONGVERSION
1232:
1202:
1190:
1158:
1135:
1112:
1109:
1101:
1082:
1067:
1036:
1031:Questions from
1024:
1009:
997:
982:
977:
972:
970:
961:
949:
940:
928:
917:
908:
895:
879:
861:
846:
837:
820:
788:
780:
775:Questions from
768:
755:
733:
728:Questions from
721:
707:
695:
673:
659:
644:
639:Questions from
615:
600:
594:
576:
555:
549:
535:
506:
501:Questions from
470:
434:
406:
401:Questions from
394:
352:
347:Questions from
331:
326:Questions from
319:
306:
301:
292:
263:
191:
80:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1733:
1731:
1723:
1722:
1712:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1688:zero tolerance
1684:
1680:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1648:
1644:
1640:Question from
1638:
1636:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1606:
1602:
1600:User:Blackmane
1598:Question from
1596:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1578:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1561:personal views
1557:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1544:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1534:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1525:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1515:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1505:
1495:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1480:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1470:
1466:
1460:
1458:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1449:does not scale
1446:
1440:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1432:
1426:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1409:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1374:
1370:
1366:Question from
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1330:
1325:
1321:
1317:Question from
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1292:
1291:
1286:
1285:
1283:
1282:
1280:
1279:
1272:
1271:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1238:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1205:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1177:
1168:Wikipediocracy
1163:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1145:
1134:
1130:Question from
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1110:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1039:
1035:
1033:GrammarFascist
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1018:
1012:
1008:
1004:Question from
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
994:
964:
960:
956:Question from
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
946:
939:
935:Question from
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
925:
920:
916:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
905:
900:
898:
897:
896:
893:
884:
882:
881:
880:
876:
866:
864:
863:
862:
854:
849:
845:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
834:
825:
823:
822:
821:
817:
791:
787:
784:
779:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
765:
760:
758:
757:
756:
742:
736:
732:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
719:
710:
706:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
692:
689:such section?
678:
676:
675:
674:
670:
664:
662:
661:
660:
656:
647:
643:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
619:
618:
617:
616:
612:
573:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
539:
538:
537:
536:
528:
527:
524:
523:
520:
512:
505:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
489:
487:
486:
485:
475:
473:
472:
471:
459:
449:
447:
446:
445:
439:
437:
436:
435:
431:
430:
427:
426:
423:
422:
414:
409:
405:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
364:
355:
351:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
330:
324:
318:
315:
314:
310:
308:
300:
297:
294:
293:
291:
290:
285:
280:
274:
273:
262:
261:
254:
247:
239:
237:
227:
226:
190:
65:
64:
61:
58:
39:
38:
34:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1732:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1715:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1689:
1685:
1683:
1682:
1678:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1649:
1647:
1646:
1643:
1639:
1637:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1605:
1604:
1601:
1597:
1595:
1594:
1591:
1582:
1581:
1579:
1577:
1573:
1572:
1570:
1569:snide attacks
1566:
1562:
1558:
1556:
1552:
1551:
1549:
1545:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1526:
1524:
1520:
1519:
1516:
1514:
1510:
1509:
1506:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1494:
1490:
1484:
1483:
1481:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1471:
1469:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1459:
1450:
1445:
1444:
1441:
1439:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1421:
1420:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1402:
1401:
1398:
1397:
1385:
1379:
1378:
1375:
1373:
1372:
1369:
1365:
1359:
1358:
1356:
1354:
1353:
1344:
1343:
1340:
1338:
1337:
1329:
1328:
1326:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1316:
1308:
1296:
1290:
1277:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1259:
1258:proxy editing
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1227:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1197:
1176:
1175:
1173:
1169:
1164:
1162:
1154:
1153:
1151:
1146:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1140:
1133:
1129:
1119:
1116:
1114:
1107:
1104:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1078:
1077:
1075:
1073:
1072:
1064:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1022:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1003:
993:
992:
991:
988:
987:
985:
980:
975:
965:
963:
962:
959:
955:
945:
944:
942:
941:
938:
934:
924:
923:
921:
919:
918:
914:
904:
903:
901:
899:
892:
891:
889:
885:
883:
875:
874:
871:
867:
865:
859:
853:
852:
850:
848:
847:
843:
833:
832:
830:
826:
824:
816:
815:
813:
812:
808:
807:functionaries
804:
800:
796:
792:
790:
789:
786:Subcommittees
785:
783:
778:
774:
764:
763:
761:
759:
752:
747:
741:
740:
737:
735:
734:
731:
727:
718:
717:
715:
711:
709:
708:
705:
701:
691:
690:
688:
683:
679:
677:
669:
668:
665:
663:
655:
654:
652:
648:
646:
645:
642:
638:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
611:
610:
608:
603:
597:
592:
588:
584:
579:
574:
572:
571:
561:
554:
553:infobox opera
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
533:
519:
518:
517:
513:
511:
510:
509:
504:
500:
494:
493:
490:
488:
484:
483:
481:
476:
474:
468:
466:
458:
457:
455:
450:
448:
444:
443:
440:
438:
419:
413:
412:
410:
408:
407:
404:
400:
391:
390:Go Phightins!
386:
381:
376:
372:
368:
363:
362:
360:
356:
354:
353:
350:
346:
340:
339:
337:
333:
332:
329:
325:
323:
316:
313:
304:
298:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
276:
275:
272:
271:
266:
260:
255:
253:
248:
246:
241:
240:
238:
235:
231:
230:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
194:
189:
184:
181:
176:
173:
168:
165:
160:
157:
152:
149:
144:
141:
138:
135:
130:
127:
122:
119:
114:
111:
106:
103:
98:
95:
90:
87:
83:
79:
78:
77:
73:
69:
62:
59:
56:
55:
54:
51:
47:
43:
37:
36:
33:
30:
23:
19:
1693:WhatamIdoing
1661:Kevin Gorman
1642:Kevin Gorman
1635:
1587:
1500:
1497:
1457:
1412:
1399:
1392:
1389:
1294:
1253:
1225:
1195:
1136:
1102:
1055:
969:
968:
857:
809:
803:Oversighters
781:
750:
714:Terms of Use
686:
681:
650:
507:
503:Gerda Arendt
464:
442:gender gap?
384:
379:
374:
370:
366:
358:
335:
320:
305:
302:
268:
218:
212:
206:
200:
192:
182:
174:
166:
158:
150:
142:
136:
128:
120:
112:
104:
96:
88:
74:
70:
66:
52:
48:
44:
40:
1051:Triesenberg
799:Check Users
596:Floquenbeam
267:candidate:
117:target logs
1307:WP:NOTHERE
1132:Brustopher
937:Biblioworm
858:bĂŞte noire
777:Guerillero
349:Smallbones
336:disruption
68:research.
22:Candidates
1619:Blackmane
1417:WP:HARASS
1319:DoggySoup
1209:MĂĽdigkeit
1172:WP:OUTING
1150:WP:OUTING
1139:WP:OUTING
873:problem?
767:policies.
751:Brietbart
560:Rigoletto
467:editorial
463:a recent
433:harassed.
403:Antony–22
216:deletions
179:checkuser
125:block log
1714:Category
1691:(XXG)?
1395:SilkTork
1111:contribs
1097:Gamaliel
465:Signpost
385:Signpost
380:Signpost
375:Signpost
371:Signpost
367:Signpost
359:Signpost
270:Gamaliel
210:protects
93:contribs
82:Gamaliel
32:Gamaliel
20: |
1464:SageRad
1413:obvious
1260:policy?
1105:Fascist
1103:Grammar
927:circus.
811:en banc
651:without
641:Collect
602:Yunshui
328:Carlotm
1614:WP:ANI
393:found.
311:|A=}}
204:blocks
197:rights
1610:WP:AN
1590:Ryk72
1493:Ryk72
1056:won't
1047:trans
958:Yash!
878:area.
532:trout
222:moves
187:socks
101:count
16:<
1697:talk
1665:talk
1623:talk
1612:and
1213:talk
827:The
801:and
793:The
687:each
605:'s "
140:rfas
109:logs
86:talk
1653:EFF
1546:In
1274:at
1099:. —
1043:cis
712:Is
171:lta
163:rfc
155:arb
147:rfb
1716::
1699:)
1667:)
1659:)
1625:)
1215:)
1045:,
978:sh
973:Ya
609:"
556:}}
550:{{
361:?
133:lu
1695:(
1663:(
1621:(
1309:.
1287:*
1278:.
1211:(
983:!
562:.
258:e
251:t
244:v
224:)
219:·
213:·
207:·
201:·
193:·
183:·
175:·
167:·
159:·
151:·
143:·
137:·
129:·
121:·
113:·
105:·
97:·
89:·
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
