467:
accused still has a right to know the charge and be given an opportunity to modify their behaviour that is being deemed harassment. I recently had a situation where a serious complaint was brought to me where the complainant did not want the complaint escalated beyond my eyes because they feared retaliation. I am not insensitive to this concern. In that situation, I worked from another angle to try to address the cause of the interpersonal conflict indirectly. If a complainant is not willing to allow the adjudicating body to communicate the allegations to the alleged party causing harassment, it may be necessary to suggest to the complainant that the committee will look at alternate options to address the root behaviour, while maintaining th caveat that this ultimately may prove impossible or ineffectual. Your question is actually quite broad. If you want me to elucidate, feel free to ask a follow up.
621:
log and acknowledge queries made to arbitrators both publicly and privately, and provide executive summaries on a weekly basis along with action items for each arbitrator, etc.; 2) an individual with dispute resolution experience to play a strictly advisory role to the committee and provide insight to those stepping into a role who often lack formal trained in dispute resolution or behaviour management; and 3) a lawyer willing to respond to arbitration committee questions swiftly (the general counsels during my tenure were excellent for this - is the relationship the same?). Failing that, an arbitrator or two have to be designated to coordinate business. During my time, Rogers Davies among others executed this role well and it's something I would offer to pick up for the outset.
1248:
the NB at the end of your candidate statement. My understanding is that ArbCom members are not required to be
Administrators, however I request clarification about this: "...during the current period of uncertainty with respect to administrative conduct enforcement I have chosen to relinquish that user group." (Conduct related violations aren't enforced retroactively. We are Knowledge (XXG), not a court of law. We don't have a penal code with statutes of limitations.) Unless your past conduct was egregiously contrary to project norms, it is irrelevant to me whether or not you hold Administrator privileges. Was your past conduct as an Administrator egregious? Rather, was it of such a nature that--if continued--would be non-compliant with ArbCom conduct policy?
968:. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Knowledge (XXG) in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
1229:) In Knowledge (XXG) dispute resolution it is rare to be denied the right of reply, which is why so many (including myself) were troubled by the structure of the Fram case. Iām not sure if you mean to say participants should have their own section on the PD page? They are usually free to comment on the PD talk page. As for biographical articles, that seems somewhat thorny. It would mean there would be a section of the article where the subject could write whatever they wish as a response? In general an article subject would be permitted to make comments on the talk page, which although not the same venue as the article proper is just one click away. I suppose they could request a ādisputed - discussā tag be placed on any challenged content.
210:
and then we have a few who tend to respond to others in an abrasive manner. Now, I like to think that Iāve got fairly thick skin. Other editors might not. This is ultimately meant to be a collaborative and collegiate environment, and interpersonal remarks of an abrasive nature does not foster the same and could drive off editors of all types. That being said, āpoking bearsā does occur (baiting of those known to roar) and this harms the project also. My goal would be to look at the root behaviours on all sides, rather than the individual editors, to ensure a measured and balanced approach.
1253:
appeal such decisions. It is in this context that I chose to relinquish administrative privileges, rather than operate in an environment of uncertainty. I know of no past conduct on my part that would attract the attention of the
Foundation/T&S or that is non-compliant with arbitration conduct expectations, but FRAM similarly took me by surprise. For greater certainty: I've never been contacted by T&S with respect to my conduct; and the last time the committee contacted me was a gentle reminder about oversight activity expectations, leading me to relinquish that user group (
588:
apparently ignored a rule written into a user essay when addressing ineligible contributions to an RfA. Now, there are many wonderful and helpful essays out there. But I do not subscribe to the belief that they should be adhered to without regard to the net effect of the actions dictated. User essays are just that, and typically do not demonstrate a robust consensus the same way that policies and guidelines often do. My usual approach when I feel that a consensus has been declared with too small a sample is to encourage a wider discussion (
697:
comments made by two other candidates standing in the election. If you are trying to tease out my opinion on some wider project ideal or norm, I would prefer you rephrase your question in more general terms and not relate it to GWE so that I wonāt be required to do at least several hours of reading and comment about other candidates. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for GWE to come back to arbitration and commenting here off the cuff would compromise my ability in any subsequent case, clarification, or amendment request.
1011:) Thereās a strong field of quality candidates, which is all I really wanted for the upcoming year. If Iām not elected, Iāll probably breathe a little sigh of relief and keep working on fulfilling the 2015 request from the community for bureaucrats to take a more active role clerking RfAs. Iāll admit to being somewhat concerned that nearly a fifth of the bureaucrat corps could be seconded to the committee, and encourage interested administrators and non-administrators alike to stand for the position of bureaucrat.
271:, that was brought about as a result of a biased committee not being impartial. The case should've been entitled Infobox 3, but the committee considered it to be too difficult to deal with the infobox problem and instead, made the case exclusively about me - suffice to say, the problem with infobox discussions still exist. I wondered whether, in future cases, not exclusive to IB discussions, you would consider it more important to deal with the cause rather than just the symptom?
522:. So I am not unsympathetic to the position in which the committee was placed, and T&S clearly found themselves in a similar catch-22 if the complainant was not willing to grant permission to disclose the specific diffs (which were likely to identify the complainant). Without being able to demonstrate the behaviours that are being felt by the complainant as harassment to the accused, you are denying the accused party all reasonable form of response.
276:
would have been able to deal with what Iām presuming is the actual cause (an editorial disagreement over the appropriate use of infoboxes) rather than the symptoms rising out of those conflicts. We have no editorial board, and the last I checked the content noticeboard was not well staffed or attended, which is why such disputes typically end up at arbitration for bandaid remedies.
1003:, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?
981:
project. Candidates should reasonably believe that for at least the next 12 months, they will be able to devote the necessary time to the work assignment; and, if they are appointed to a two-year term, to consider anew towards the end of their first year whether they will be able to do the same for the back half of their term.
1139:, as well.Do you feel that the displayed behavior abides by general community expectations of arbitrator conduct? Some have since stated that the concurrently running FRAMGATE meant that they had to be less devoted to this case; in such a situation, how would you have tackled this case (if anything different, at all)?
167:
Personally, having an extensive experience in a disputed area (WWII in
Yugoslavia) I believe there are plenty of options available to deal with content disputes, including RSN and RfCs. So, based on your promotion of this essay, can I take it that you believe that ArbCom should get more involved in content disputes?
980:
for candidates. Having sat on the committee before, I am aware of the workload and have mentally prepared/blocked out time for it. All candidates should be encouraged to do the same. While still a volunteer position, it is very difficult to refill a dormant seat so this is a serious commitment to the
819:
I have past collaborative interactions with User:BrownHairedGirl (and probably User:Northamerica1000) that I would have to consider. I donāt think it would necessarily warrant recusal but I havenāt looked in depth (could on request). Iāve not done much with portal space and discussions, if anything.
466:
As far as the private nature of the complaint, most of us are on the outside looking in. I do feel the committee should continue to accept and consider private complaints of harassment. At the same time, except for the most egregious cases (in which case indefinite blocks and bans are available), the
204:
There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be
696:
As an arbitrator, I always tended to spend an inordinate amount of time immersing myself in the cases I chose to sit on so that I could understand as best I could the situation at hand. Your question is asking about what looks to be a rather complicated case, and itās asking me to remark directly on
235:
The appropriate course of action was to unblock Fram, procedurally restore their administrative privileges as removed out-of-process, and initiating a proper case on that matter such that all parties could contribute properly. As an exercise in parallel construction and sequestering the accused, the
128:
I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom
1301:
Iāve been seeing complaints that the committeeās requirements for prior dispute resolution are too stringent, especially in regards to administrator conduct. Since the closing of RFC/U, there is no structured/organized way to source community input or provide corrective direction to users except by
1252:
The FRAM event showed that the
Foundation felt empowered by their 'partial and temporary bans' procedure to take unilateral action on administrator accounts without regard to the commonly-accepted dispute resolution processes existing on our project, and without the ability for the affected user to
1247:
After reading the prior questions, your responses, and scanning links to your activity wherever any were cited in either the Qs or As, it is clear to me that you would be an excellent member of ArbCom if elected. Your level of activity during 2012 is not pertinent to me now. My question pertains to
341:
Short answer, no. Blocks of this nature are chilling beyond the person affected and fail to serve the wider project goals of prevention and deterrent, focusing exclusively on punishment. Effective management of behaviour requires provision of insight to the party as to the scope and nature of their
284:
No, the cause is not editorial, but disruptive individuals starting RfC after RfC after RfC in order to get the answer they want. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility through sheer frustration. But don't worry, the last committee "fixed" the byproduct, but guess what, the problem
620:
that staff it. These individuals are only able to contribute at their own unique times and volumes, which often leads to disorganization, attrition, and poor response times. It is fixable, with monetary support from the WMF to hire: 1) a secretary: to assist with committee workflows, keep minutes,
587:
Iāve seen situations where people have claimed a consensus exists where the turnout was simply too low to make any reasonable determination based on the sample represented. Thereās a thread on BN right now, for example, where two other bureaucrats disagree with my actions on a particular RfA. Iāve
400:
If Iām understanding what youāre asking, it makes sense on paper. One cannot simply walk allegations in at the last minute giving the accused no avenue of response. Some reasonable allowance should be made. Is this in regard to a specific case? My only concern would be if participants kept raising
209:
I value such creators precisely because they do what I cannot, which is to create the meat and potatos that our readers enjoy (sometimes I provide some condiments). That doesnāt give them a free pass to treat other editors poorly. We have prolific content creators who get on with others just fine,
181:
Iāll have to read it again, but my understanding is that the essay suggests an editorial board that could hear content disputes, leaving the committee to focus on conduct concerns. Yes, there are noticeboard and RFCs but none of these have a formal structure and they lack a binding finality, which
1323:
In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or
1061:
Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The
275:
It is important to define the scope of the case before it is opened. Iāve not been following the infobox disputes, but the ācauseā there (Iām guessing) is a fundamental disagreement over editorial decisions, and the committee doesnāt rule on content. Accordingly, Iām not sure the committee itself
1143:
Iād say that a fairly significant majority of the community expects the committee and its members to be willing to consider and respond promptly to good faith concerns and queries, and this is a reasonable position. It seems like the participants in that case justifiably felt disregarded. If the
1029:
This question has three parts. A major role of the
Arbitration Committee is to handle "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". Do you believe Arbitrators, individually or as a Committee, can help the community develop collective solutions before binding arbitration is
119:
One of the recurring complaints Iāve seen about the arbitration process recently is that it requires ātoo muchā prior dispute resolution. ANI itself has been deteriorating and degrading as an effective and adequately staffed/attended dispute resolution venue for quite some time. Iām not going to
1310:
Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the
English Knowledge (XXG)'s sanctions
387:
Yes: probably, though there may be times when the prior involvement was purely in an administrative capacity or limited in scope such that the arbitrator could recuse from portions of related cases rather than the entire case. I generally err on the side of caution when recusing: both on my own
1034:
I think this isnāt really within the role of the committee: far too often is it confused as the āgoverning bodyā of
Knowledge (XXG) and the community has been appropriately resistant to attempts from the committee to legislate from the bench. Individual arbitrators are sometimes well-placed to
549:, Iām proud that thereās administrators still carrying on the tradition of examining indefinitely placed administrative actions and determining whether those actions should be lifted given the passage of time. This was something I particularly enjoyed during my more active administrative years.
166:
Thanks. The point I take from this is that ArbCom should be considered our disciplinary committee, which frankly, I agree with. Discipline equals conduct in my view, and ArbCom has strayed well outside that remit in the last couple of years, with ARBGWE and the Poland case at the very least.
129:
isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI.
1181:āHighly responsiveā as in extremely quickly and positively, not necessarily (often queries are complicated and may require research and thought, also a positive response is not always possible); that semantic point aside, they should respond to good faith concerns seriously, yes.
1296:
Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?
791:
I mentioned portal space tumult elsewhere on this page and here it is. Iād be leaning towards accept, but need to have statements from the named parties. This has been boiling over for some time. Iāve not considered potential recusal areas in this response, which is based on
1356:. Undisclosed paid editing would not typically rise to the level of arbitration, as it is generally handled at the administrative level though privacy implications may require the committee to hear concerns privately. The Arbitration Committee's role is to enforce local
1302:
ad hoc discussions at AN or ANI which can be poorly attended, inconsistent, and generally unsatisfactory for the participants. Accordingly, I may be more willing to accept cases concerning administrator conduct even if it hasnāt been taken to AN/ANI a half-dozen times.
804:
It's up to you if you want to revisit your response - I'll be checking this right up till I submit my votes. Thanks for answer! One clarification: what do you mean by potential recusals? Are you saying you would have recused if you were currently an arbitrator?
1153:
910:
the case so that the work can continue while the two main parties compose their thoughts. The fact is that the case was uploaded to AC rather explicitly in an ANI closure: the community is unable to handle it without the committeeās guidance and structure.
852:
as successful 5 years ago: it was a borderline case, under somewhat unique circumstances. The fact that I didn't really remember indicates to me there is no bias on my part towards that party, but I'm always willing to hear recusal suggestions/requests.
715:
What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing
Knowledge (XXG) and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
663:
Of course. Bureaucrats do not have complete visibility, and community comments as to the suitability of resysop requests should always be considered - and not discouraged, even if ultimately consensus is found that the concerns do not preclude the
143:
Iām not seeing a follow up question. On the subject of content vs conduct, I would refer to Kelly Martinās exceptional WO essay-post of 14 November 2019 (which has been republished on this project) for a potential remedy proposal to your concern.
1124:
92:
To protect against compromise of advanced permissions (cu,os,intadmin), holders of which are generally technically savvy and equipped enough to implement 2FA. I donāt think it should be forced on administrators in its current
1328:
Iād rather reach a good decision slowly, than a bad decision quickly. It may be that the
Proposed Decision target dates are being set too optimistically, or not adjusted when the drafting arbitrators realize they may miss the
25:
484:- was that a literal "know the charge" or do you think knowing the charge also necessitates knowing all the evidence (e.g. the charge might be harassment, whereas the evidence would be various diffs and instances of that)?
336:
Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
409:
When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?
268:
754:
Fram remedy 2 should not have been enacted given that the evidence alleged to support the remedy was not presented for consideration, nor was the principal party given a fair opportunity to participate in their own
21:
304:
I will work on acquiring a greater understanding should I be elected. My response was off the cuff and (as you have highlighted) unresearched. I believe portal space discussions are undergoing similar tumult.
876:, explaining their usage of the word ājunkā in reference to a portal): they should be gently prompted to take a moment to compose a response to the case request before continuing activities in this sphere. ā
75:
Probably never, except incidentally: itās not the right took for the job (see WTTās response to same question, no need for repetition). Also, youāre begging the question: Paid editing is not prohibited, per
966:
462:. Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed? Along with that, many candidates note a balance to be drawn, but where would you actually draw a line if given the choice?
776:
I would have been working to secure a lesser remedy for Rama while seeking assurances that they'd recognized their error in judgment- though I understand contrition was somewhat lacking on their part.
1136:
1035:
identify deficiencies earlier in the dispute resolution chain, but some arbitrators dive more deeply than others. As community members, they would be able to submit proposals to fill in gaps in
120:
second-guess the decision to accept the case mentioned, hindsight being what it is. I will consider and raise the concern that the committee is too slow or reluctant to accept acrimonious cases.
763:
If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these:
1269:
This was what I was trying to ascertain: "I've never been contacted by T&S with respect to my conduct". Thank you! I appreciate the additional details, and broader context you provided.--
17:
1000:
973:
112:
893:), a reasonable explanation for the delay was provided. Still awaiting statements, which may not arrive until early December given the vacation note from the other named party. ā
546:
1315:
It looks like unjustified overreach, without seeing the undisclosed evidence. There did not appear to be a clear and present need to disregard existing community processes.
639:
Could you point to the last time you (excepting, then, the most recent candidatures) dealt with a sock attempting to vote at an RfA? (Hint: it was before
December 2016.)
728:
1390:
Why does the source code of this page (questions to Xeno, Arbcom elections 2019) look in a non-standard way (the code is very short and I see a few inputboxes?
1144:
arbitrators active on the case were spread too thin because of the Fram case and fallout (as well as attrition), then an extension should have been arranged.
1278:
1201:
1104:
936:
919:
901:
884:
861:
841:
828:
814:
493:
362:
318:
299:
249:
176:
156:
138:
436:
Probably, but I donāt want to highlight a specific resolved conflict at such a high-visibility venue with the starting premise that both parties were
115:? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?
1353:
1078:
about a āsecretaryā for the committee that could handle something like this, in the absence of that, a coordinating arbitrator. (Iād avoid the term
750:
Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?
396:
Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?
575:
immediately comes to mind, as well as other situations with real-world consequences, such as harassment etc. What policies or guidelines might
722:
1221:
and do you think this principle should be applied to Knowledge (XXG) biographies and/or Knowledge (XXG) dispute resolution, and if so, how?
833:
Still awaiting statements. I looked into interactions and theyāve been rather limited so nothing that would suggest recusal is necessary. ā
1357:
383:
Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
1199:
498:
I think it's tough to speak hypothetically about this. For example, it wouldn't really be appropriate to take a complaint about
1226:
1071:
1008:
793:
772:. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)
161:
1030:
necessary? If so, in what ways can the Committee help the community learn to handle disputes more effectively? Should they?
1131:
to engage a multitude of queries and concerns from multiple longstanding members of the community, despite the case being
682:
Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree
541:
Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
1189:
1114:
1066:
and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?
440:. You can look at my talk page and archives, I sometime resolve disputes there with an appeal to calm reasoned debate.
353:
770:
545:
Does Fram count? I think I spoke persuasively in defense of natural justice and basic fairness there. If not, at
1092:
Yes the "spokesperson" thing was a failure of creativity on my part (I was tired), but it got the point across.
630:
1344:
What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the
480:
Thanks for a good answer to a somewhat willfully broad question. To consider one specific aspect, you stated
1395:
1254:
925:
890:
873:
869:
685:
677:
646:
348:
245:
172:
152:
134:
580:
489:
1398:), which has some code to allow the creation of the candidate subpages). It also transludes this page.
1394:
It looks like you initially posted this question on my candidate page, rather than my questions page (
1043:, there is no venue short of arbitration to perform an organized review of an administratorās conduct.
644:
If the question has an answer-in-fact, could you provide the answer, and then expand on your question?
1095:
1052:
162:
Special:PermanentLink/927406237#P.S. The smartest essay you are going to read about Arbcom this year
1274:
767:
764:
806:
741:
1369:
1074:) Yes, subject to the privacy considerations mentioned, I think the proposal is sound. I dreamed
432:
Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
1040:
64:
810:
673:
583:? How would you deal with a situation in which you felt the consensus was meaningfully wrong?
241:
168:
148:
130:
102:
906:
Statements have not yet been submitted by the main parties, nevertheless I would now vote to
68:
1360:, usually in situations where the previous administrative processes have not been effective.
785:
485:
449:
342:
undesired actions. An accused party facing sanctions has a natural right to know the charge.
1345:
576:
572:
568:
706:
54:
1036:
567:
Let's assume, and quite reasonably so, that there are some policies and guidelines that
1270:
1238:
1218:
1208:
1020:
934:
917:
899:
882:
859:
839:
826:
311:
292:
460:"RfC focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future."
558:
1063:
285:
continued. I would ask that you have an understanding of this important issue as it
1352:
Paid editors are required to disclose that they are compensated for their editing:
990:
956:
603:
547:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Indefinite IP address blocks
423:
374:
84:
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of
414:
As above. Evidence introduced by arbitrators should not be treated differently.
720:
Functionaries and other advanced permission holders should strictly adhere to
868:
Still awaiting statements. One of the main parties put up a vacation notice (
929:
912:
894:
877:
854:
848:
I've just noticed while reviewing the statements of this case that I closed
834:
821:
401:
11th hour charges, which would keep extending the evidence/workshop phases.
532:
269:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions
796:. Would you like me to revisit my response after another 24 hours or so?
659:, on the other hand, is an excellent approach. Will we see more of it?
872:); the other continues to participate in portal space discussions (in
231:. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?
690:
counsel...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden
1378:
What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?
612:
What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
1062:
complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see
240:
Thank you satisfied, another example of how easy this could be. --
85:
1172:
who expresses an honest and constructive opinion should be taken
1127:, all of the arbitrators (sans PMC, who responded a single time)
889:
Gently prompted in the form of a courtesy note referencing here (
308:
Thanks, Xeno, much obliged for taking the time to respond to me.
1177:. Do you agree with the premises of these statements? Comment.
39:
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019
676:'s question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more
113:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort
147:
Could you link to this? I'm not seeing this on this page.
1001:
User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates
974:
User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates
729:
meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information
1257:). If you have any follow-up queries, please feel free.
656:
590:
227:
616:
I would say it is the immense pressure placed on the
965:
Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at
267:Last year, I was the named party in the ham-fisted
579:trump? Specifically, for example, could it trump
516:"hey, look, don't do this stuff like you did to Z
482:the accused still has a right to know the charge
506:and then turn around and find some diffs where
111:What do you think about the decision to accept
723:meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy
458:Once the new ARBCOM is in we'll be seeing an
225:I commented in the Fram case, decision talk,
8:
1354:Knowledge (XXG):Paid-contribution disclosure
571:could never trump under any circumstances.
182:can lead to forum shopping and RfC fatigue.
1382:Fairness and due process for participants.
1075:
346:Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer.
67:be an appropriate countermeasure against
1358:Knowledge (XXG):Policies and guidelines
1039:. For example: since the shuttering of
680:by one sitting arbitrator, who advised
1188:Thanks, in advance, for your answers.
1168:
1157:
689:
681:
481:
459:
7:
1337:Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
1135:situated on public evidence. I note
976:immediately below- this should be
32:
1324:providing a longer target date?
1227:Special:PermanentLink/925014166
1152:Your fellow candidate, Gadfium
1072:Special:PermanentLink/925934240
1009:Special:PermanentLink/604940617
794:Special:PermanentLink/926883100
329:Question from WereSpielChequers
1289:Questions from Robert McClenon
784:There's a case request today.
1:
1279:02:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
1202:08:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
1162:to community concerns on the
1105:05:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
937:20:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
920:10:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
902:01:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
885:02:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
862:13:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
842:02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
829:02:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
815:02:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
494:10:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
363:15:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
319:21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
300:17:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
250:11:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
177:09:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
157:08:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
139:03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
672:How would you contextualise
514:in a similar way, and say:
236:case was an abject failure.
197:Question from Leaky caldron
1416:
1217:How do you feel about the
732:, no matter the audience.
388:volition, and by request.
289:come up again, I'm sure.
86:two-factor authentication
924:The case was accepted:
260:Question from Cassianto
65:discretionary sanctions
1396:Special:Diff/928580201
1255:Special:Diff/854076206
926:Special:Diff/928097122
891:Special:Diff/927223681
874:Special:Diff/927215917
870:Special:Diff/927081706
647:Special:Diff/715456232
787:Would you accept it?
63:When, if ever, would
88:on Knowledge (XXG)?
35:Individual questions
1164:talk pages of cases
218:Question from Gerda
173:click to talk to me
153:click to talk to me
135:click to talk to me
1160:highly responsive
1103:
1082:, as too loaded).
972:I was pointed to
678:recent suggestion
45:|Q=Your question
1407:
1197:
1192:
1137:this ATCN thread
1102:
1100:
1098:Volunteer Marek
1093:
978:required reading
593:
360:
356:
351:
316:
314:
297:
295:
230:
48:
43:#{{ACE Question
1415:
1414:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1399:
1383:
1373:
1361:
1339:
1330:
1316:
1303:
1291:
1258:
1242:
1230:
1212:
1193:
1190:
1182:
1158:Arbs should be
1145:
1118:
1096:
1094:
1083:
1056:
1053:Volunteer Marek
1044:
1024:
1012:
994:
982:
960:
797:
777:
756:
745:
733:
710:
698:
665:
649:
634:
622:
607:
595:
589:
562:
550:
536:
510:had gone after
468:
453:
441:
427:
422:Questions from
415:
402:
389:
378:
373:Questions from
358:
354:
349:
343:
331:
312:
310:
293:
291:
277:
262:
237:
226:
220:
211:
199:
121:
106:
94:
77:
58:
53:Questions from
42:
37:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
1413:
1411:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1393:
1388:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1376:
1372:
1368:Question from
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1351:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1321:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1314:
1308:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1251:
1245:
1241:
1237:Question from
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1224:
1219:right of reply
1215:
1211:
1207:Question from
1205:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1150:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1121:
1117:
1113:Question from
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1069:
1059:
1055:
1051:Question from
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1033:
1027:
1023:
1019:Question from
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1006:
997:
993:
989:Question from
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
971:
963:
959:
955:Question from
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
866:
865:
864:
801:
800:
799:
798:
790:
782:
780:
779:
778:
775:
761:
759:
758:
757:
753:
748:
744:
740:Question from
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
719:
713:
709:
705:Question from
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
695:
670:
668:
667:
666:
662:
654:
652:
651:
650:
642:
637:
633:
629:Question from
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
615:
610:
606:
602:Question from
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
586:
565:
561:
557:Question from
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
544:
539:
535:
531:Question from
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
472:
471:
470:
469:
465:
456:
452:
448:Question from
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
435:
430:
426:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
407:
405:
404:
403:
399:
394:
392:
391:
390:
386:
381:
377:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
340:
334:
330:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
281:
280:
279:
278:
274:
265:
261:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
234:
223:
219:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
202:
198:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
183:
125:
124:
123:
122:
118:
109:
105:
101:Question from
99:
98:
97:
96:
95:
91:
82:
80:
79:
78:
74:
61:
57:
51:
50:
46:
44:
36:
33:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1412:
1397:
1392:
1391:
1389:
1387:
1380:
1379:
1377:
1375:
1374:
1371:
1370:Grillofrances
1367:
1359:
1355:
1350:
1349:
1347:
1343:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1320:
1313:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1299:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1256:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1236:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1220:
1216:
1214:
1213:
1210:
1206:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1196:
1179:
1178:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1155:
1151:
1149:
1141:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1112:
1106:
1101:
1099:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1065:
1064:this proposal
1060:
1058:
1057:
1054:
1050:
1042:
1038:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1010:
1005:
1004:
1002:
998:
996:
995:
992:
988:
979:
975:
970:
969:
967:
964:
962:
961:
958:
954:
938:
935:
933:
932:
927:
923:
922:
921:
918:
916:
915:
909:
905:
904:
903:
900:
898:
897:
892:
888:
887:
886:
883:
881:
880:
875:
871:
867:
863:
860:
858:
857:
851:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
840:
838:
837:
832:
831:
830:
827:
825:
824:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
803:
802:
795:
789:
788:
786:
783:
781:
774:
773:
771:
768:
765:
762:
760:
752:
751:
749:
747:
746:
743:
739:
731:
730:
725:
724:
718:
717:
714:
712:
711:
708:
704:
694:
693:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
669:
661:
660:
658:
655:
653:
648:
645:
641:
640:
638:
636:
635:
632:
628:
619:
614:
613:
611:
609:
608:
605:
601:
592:
585:
584:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
564:
563:
560:
556:
548:
543:
542:
540:
538:
537:
534:
530:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
496:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
475:
474:
473:
464:
463:
461:
457:
455:
454:
451:
447:
439:
434:
433:
431:
429:
428:
425:
421:
412:
411:
408:
406:
398:
397:
395:
393:
385:
384:
382:
380:
379:
376:
372:
364:
361:
357:
352:
345:
344:
339:
338:
335:
333:
332:
328:
320:
317:
315:
307:
306:
303:
302:
301:
298:
296:
288:
283:
282:
273:
272:
270:
266:
264:
263:
259:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
233:
232:
229:
224:
222:
221:
217:
207:
206:
203:
201:
200:
196:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
165:
164:
163:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:
142:
141:
140:
136:
132:
127:
126:
117:
116:
114:
110:
108:
107:
104:
100:
90:
89:
87:
83:
81:
73:
72:
70:
66:
62:
60:
59:
56:
52:
49:
40:
34:
27:
23:
19:
1194:
1187:
1173:
1169:
1163:
1159:
1132:
1128:
1097:
1080:spokesperson
1079:
977:
930:
913:
907:
895:
878:
855:
849:
835:
822:
727:
721:
688:MILHIST was
686:another that
674:Peacemaker67
643:
617:
581:WP:CONSENSUS
519:
518:! to shield
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
477:
437:
347:
309:
290:
286:
242:Gerda Arendt
169:Peacemaker67
149:Peacemaker67
131:Peacemaker67
103:Peacemaker67
69:paid editing
41:
38:
486:Nosebagbear
478:Followup 1:
450:Nosebagbear
850:RfA/NA1K 2
707:Praxidicae
618:volunteers
55:Newslinger
22:Candidates
1271:FeralOink
1239:FeralOink
1209:Jehochman
1174:seriously
1167:and that
1125:this page
1021:Wugapodes
313:Cassianto
294:Cassianto
228:like this
205:treated?
1311:regime?
1133:entirely
1041:WP:RFC/U
664:request.
559:Lingzhi2
359:Chequers
24: |
20: |
1129:refused
991:Gadfium
957:Piotrus
807:Banedon
742:Banedon
631:SN54129
604:Carrite
438:hostile
424:Caker18
375:Collect
1346:WP:TOU
1170:anyone
1154:writes
908:Accept
684:, and
577:WP:IAR
573:WP:BLP
569:WP:IAR
47:|A=}}
1329:mark.
1123:Over
1076:above
1037:WP:DR
755:case.
502:from
355:Spiel
93:form.
16:<
1275:talk
931:xeno
914:xeno
896:xeno
879:xeno
856:xeno
836:xeno
823:xeno
811:talk
726:and
657:This
591:e.g.
490:talk
350:Ļ¢ere
287:will
246:talk
26:Xeno
1195:WBG
1156::-
1115:WBG
999:In
928:. ā
533:SQL
76:se.
1348:?
1277:)
813:)
769:,
766:,
692:?
594:).
492:)
248:)
175:)
155:)
137:)
71:?
1273:(
1225:(
1191:āÆ
1070:(
1007:(
911:ā
853:ā
820:ā
809:(
520:Y
512:Z
508:X
504:Y
500:X
488:(
244:(
171:(
151:(
133:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.