Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Softlavender

2. What has been the most rewarding aspect of your time spent on ArbCom? Softlavender ( talk) 02:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I think ArbCom is rewarding in the same way as working in other administrative tasks on Wikipedia. It comes down to seeing a value in volunteerism by contributing to your community and a project you believe in. Most administrative tasks on Wikipedia are mundane and routine. ArbCom is no different. However, we have dealt with some dark situations during my two-year term. Some days I did not even want to open my inbox. Other days I found myself getting up in the middle of the night to write emails or make conference calls. Making a difference, even if it is just for one person in a way that no one will ever know about, will always be an important and meaningful contribution for me. One that I am willing to do so others can edit and write content.

Question from Peacemaker67

2. Given you weren't involved in looking at the German War Effort case this last year, I'm interested in your thoughts about the decision of your fellow Arbs to take it on, particularly given the lack of prior attempts to deal with the identified behaviours through the usual dramaboards? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I am not very familiar with the case and most likely I will not have enough time to thoroughly review everything but I will look it over and get back to you with my comments. Mkdw ^talk 01:02, 13 November 2018‎
   
   I have read over some of the preliminary statements, arbitrators' opinions on the case request, and the proposed decisions. I would definitely need a lot more time to become familiar with the case to provide you with a comprehensive and informed answer. Given the circumstances, I think the case should have been accepted but limited in scope to investigate editor conduct with respect to harassment. I do not think places like ANI would have been able to have resolve the issues presented in the way they were at ARC. Addressing the harassment issue might have allowed the dispute to be unboxed in a way for the parties to return and seek to resolve the remaining outstanding issues on their own. Sometimes a single aspect or individual can shift the entire dynamic. If the case ends up back at ArbCom, at least it would have been simplified and the scope would be more focused. It is very hard to say even with the benefits of hindsight. Mkdw ^talk 05:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Alex Shih

2. Is it the role of the committee to serve the community, or is it community's role to serve the committee? This is related to the following comment: ( [1]). My question to you is, do you agree with AGK's rebuttal to your colleague there? Further, what will you do, if re-elected, to ensure that the committee stays closer connected with the community?

   The Arbitration Committee serves on behalf of the community. There are certainly statements that are more helpful than others but I think my record shows that I generally encourage and wait for the individuals involved and the community to have the opportunity to weigh in before making a decision: [2] [3] [4] [5] and especially here. I cannot say that we have a particularly efficient system but any arbitration process requires a substantial amount of review. The process is open to the community and it is our responsibility "to gauge the views of the community and the parties" and make a decision.
   
   WT:ACN is an under-utilized venue with the potential to improve communication between the community and the committee. I made an effort there to respond to inquiries from the community when possible. An overall higher degree of participation there would make the committee was more accessible to the community. In addition, there have been a number of proposals to update some of our procedures and processes. Bureaucracy can be tedious and boring, but for anyone willing, I hope community consultation will remain a part of that process.

4. Do you agree with Courcelles's answer to my question here ( [6]), in particular the part about the level of conduct on the mailing list "should be held in an atmosphere or respect for each other, the matter under discussion, and respect for non-subscribers who are mentioned". If yes, what will you do, if re-elected, to ensure this expected level of conduct continues to be maintained on the mailing list?

   Courcelles raises some good points and there is nothing in their statement I object to with respect to conduct on the mailing list. I have always tried to conduct myself in a way that is professional. As you know, the Arbitration Committee receives a wide range of inquiries, appeals, and emails. In some situations, the best thing to do is call, a spade, a spade. We have received death threats in the past and it has absolutely been the right decision to condemn those tactics and individuals. The vast majority of our communications are rather plain and being diplomatic is usually the best course of action, even if the committee consensus is that the appeal or position of the other individual lacks merit. No one is appointed to the committee to police the others and the best way to create a culture of mutual cooperation and respect is to act appropriately and accordingly by example. It has been my experience on the committee that when someone does cross the line, it has been discussed. I hope that practice can continue.

6. What is your stance on improving the transparency of ArbCom, and the target dates for drafting cases? For example, if a deadline will be missed, should the drafting arbitrator inform the community that the deadline will be missed, or should they wait until someone from the community to bring it up?

   I mentioned transparency in my nomination statement because it is important whenever possible. The Arbitration Committee is in the unfortunate position where the most of the issues we deal with require strict confidentiality. Nonetheless, transparency can be accomplished even on a limited scale through 'due process'. The individual of any complaint being considered by the committee should have an opportunity to make a statement; appeals that also include a community ban should have a community consultation process; and so forth. Communication is a vital component to the arbitration process and drafting arbitrators and the clerks should provide updates to the community if there are any significant changes. Implementing best practices such as redundancy by having more than one drafting arbitrator and clerk can also ensure at least one person is able to provide updates or respond to inquiries.

8. Speaking of community consultation, as a side question here do you think the current system of CUOS appointment requires any reform? The recent CUOS community consultation revealed many misunderstandings from experienced members of the community in the process, noticeably the idea that 1) It is not supposed to be RfA-like process 2) The final decisions are made through private voting by the committee, where the result of the community consultation process was inconsequential as we have witnessed in the result. Alex Shih ( talk) 07:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   Yes, the CUOS appointment process could benefit from some reforms. I think the expectations could be better communicated. The community consultation process was not inconsequential and I took much of it under consideration. I think it is a considerable oversimplification to say because the CUOS appointments did not exactly match the community consultation votes, therefore the process was inconsequential. For example, availability is a major consideration in filling a vacancy in a team and yet it was not mentioned once in the community consultation process. It does not mean the community was ignored, but we had additional requirements to consider when making the appointments as it was ultimately the final responsibility of the committee. The community does not have the same responsibility to oversee the functionaries and therefore will potentially focus on different issues when discussing candidates, such as trustworthiness. In the past, private concerns raised about candidates have also ultimately prevented the individual from being appointed. Candidates often confidentially disclose personal information about themselves and their qualifications which informs the process. Finally, the functionary team provides us with their assessment, sometimes based upon recent cases and where we feel more support and expertise is required. Expecting appointments to match only one step in a three (or four step process if you include the application submission process), is not realistic, nor coming to the conclusion that if it does not, the process is somehow irrelevant.

Question from Cinderella157

2. Arb policy makes a requirement for transparency and Arb cases make an explicit statement of intent to reach a "fair" decision.
   1. What are, in your opinion, the "principles and spirit" (per WP:5P5) that underpin the policy and statement?
   2. The policy in particular, requires "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". Please comment on this duty as it might apply to you (say, as a drafting arbitrator) and the committee as a whole, in respect to how this duty is discharged (noting the underlying principles), particularly where the evidence presented might be in conflict.
   3. Do you consider that this duty has been complied with and what might you do to improve compliance? Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   (1) We need to remember why we are here, to build an encyclopedia. The proposed principles of every case vary but the first principle, Purpose of Wikipedia, is always the same and often includes supplementary language about respect. It serves as an important reminder that amid all of our policies, guidelines, and procedures, we are ultimately here for a common goal.
   
   (2) Providing detailed rationales as a drafting arbitrator should be a common practice throughout the entire case. Not every inquiry constitutes one and this aspect has been the subject of abuse by participants, but in ideal circumstances, a case should arrive at the proposed decision phase without many surprises. This does not always happen and often committee members only review a case once its in the final proposed decision phase. As for evidence, I think it is crucial to discuss facts of finding and whether each is warranted as a detail of the case and whether there was sufficient evidence to support it. FOF#7 on the Joefromrandb and others case was an example where an FOF dealt with non-participation. Originally it included seeming commentary which I initially opposed in favour of a more neutral finding supported by the evidence.
   
   (3) Generally speaking, yes. There have not been any instances that I can recall off hand where a decision was made and a detailed rationale that would not have violated confidentiality was not provided when requested. I have made an effort to provide explanations whenever possible and I would hope to continue that practice.

4. There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
   1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
   2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
   3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   (1) In specific situations like the one you example, we rely on the clerks to handle these situations. We have a good team at the moment and we regularly discuss our conduct expectations for all arbitration proceedings. These decisions are made in advance so if a specific situation arises it can be dealt with appropriately by the clerks. It is much better for committee members to not be involved with specific instances. The example you provide seems quite clear, but other times it will not. We absolutely want to avoid a situation where the committee is cherry picking what statements are taken, thereby jeopardizing the impartial nature of the process.
   
   (2) I would need to know more about the situation and evidence submission before being able to make a determination. Again we have the clerks to assist in the process who could step if necessary. In my experience, evidence that is not relevant, appropriate, or being presented faithfully is often called out by either the individual with whom it is directed at or by others participants in the process. If that piece of evidence became important in an FOF or PD, I would hope the committee would have the competency to accurately evaluate the evidence. I would not vote for any outcome based evidence I knew to be misleading.
   
   (3) My opinion might be biased on this point, but I disagree that there is virtually no recourse. I think the actions of the Arbitration Committee and its members are always under intense scrutiny from the community. We are held to higher degree of conduct expectations and the community has not been shy about expressing that when they are discontent with our actions. Other members of the committee are often critical of one another when they feel something has been done inappropriately. I think it is very unlikely an entire committee would go rogue and so WP:ARBCOND exists as a check and balance along with elections, interim elections, and two year terms.

6. In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I am not sure we have any miracle changes to ease the pain in dealing with POV pushing. A NPOV is a subjective matter and something relatively inconsistent and ill-defined on Wikipedia. As others have recommended, a higher degree of participation in cases earlier on might help, but it also provides more diverse opinions (which is not a bad thing). The possibility of a split committee has historically been one of the primary issues. More time would give cases a better chance to try and resolve these issues so I would support doing so. Similar to what I said to BMK below, I am of the opinion that the situation has been steadily improving and the community is getting better at dealing with these issues. Supporting those editors and processes early on has proven effective and the community is by far our best way in dealing with the situation. When the alternatives have been exhausted, the committee should be willing to consider topic-bans and the use discretionary sanctions in areas not already covered.

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? Try to look as if you never saw it ;)

   I think this is a really interesting question because the [first] case request was in October 2017. Three months later Joefromrandb and others was accepted and eventually resulted in two restrictions placed against Joefromrandb.
   
   Hindsight is always 20/20 but given the circumstances at the time, I think it was the right decision to decline the case request. OR's comment was the catalyst that changed the mind of everyone to decline the case. Her advice to Joefromrandb was well reasoned and sadly if followed might have resulted in a very different outcome in March 2018. I also agree with her opinions about civility and how in certain contexts it has been weaponized under a singular interpretation which has in some cases led to considerable disruption and permanent damage.

Questions from Collect

2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?

   Proceeding to a case should never imply that sanctions must be applied. "Arbitration is a venue of last resort" and if the community has been unable to resolve the issue on their own then the committee should become involved. While the likelihood of sanctions is typically high, the committee should only act in a way that accomplishes an effective resolution or remedy with the least amount of impact and intervention possible.

4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?

   Unless those edits are blatant vandalism or the arbitrator is acting in their official capacity and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, then the arbitrator has ceased being impartial and should recuse themselves on any arbitration matters where the editor is an involved party.

6. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?

   (1) No. Editors should be granted a reasonable amount of time to respond. (2) Extensions should be granted if the situation warrants it such as in the case of serious new accusations and evidence. (3) Yes, the introduction of any new evidence which would majorly affect a case, such as being used in a proposed decision should be subject to 'due process'.

Questions from 28bytes

2. Hi Mkdw. What are your thoughts on this situation? In general, what factors do you think the committee should take into consideration when deciding whether to pursue an allegation that a high-profile editor is using a sockpuppet account to evade a topic ban? Did the committee make the right decision in this case? (Additional context here.)

   The situation with Cirt was very unfortunate. I was on the Arbitration Committee when we were first informed of the situation and during the SPI outcome. I cannot provide many details beyond what is already available without breaching confidentiality. The quality of the evidence directly submitted improved but only over time and into a period where the accounts were both inactive for several months. Cirt ceased being active in 2016-04 and Sagecandor ceased being active on 2017-08-07 until reappearing one year later on 2018-09-18. The SPI was filed on 2018-10-01 and quickly acted upon by Bbb23. I do not think we made the wrong decision and I do not think the suspicions were lucky either; the evidence was not strong enough to meet the bar and we were not willing to lower it enough to meet it. We now know doing so would have worked out that time, but it almost certainly would not work out for a lot of other allegations we receive and the community would not support essentially what would constitute as fishing expeditions.

4. Recently an editor placed links to offsite court documents involving an ArbCom candidate on that candidate's question page. Without commenting on this specific case (unless you want to), what factors would you take into consideration when determining whether to allow or suppress similar links in an ArbCom election, or an RFA, or an AN/I report?

   I have recused myself on matters that are before the Arbitration Committee with respect to what you are referencing. I do not want to influence that process or in a way that might affect the election results. I will leave it simple and short: we have pretty clear policies on these types of things.

Question from Liz

2. Hello, Mkdw. As you have previously served or are currently serving on the Arbitration Committee, will you state what you believe is biggest misconception most editors have about how ARBCOM works? What do you think editors SHOULD know about the operation of ARBCOM and how arbitrators collaborate that we probably don't realize? Any aspect of ARBCOM's operation that you would change if you could? Thanks and good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I think most editors assume every decision made by the committee has the full participation of the active arbitrators and most of the time the decisions are unanimous or nearly thereabout. I speak a bit about this in my response to Atsme's question. In reality, some appeals have been decided on as few as four votes with the appeal having spent weeks in queue. I do feel bad about those who have to end up waiting for so long. The new committee will have 13 seats making an absolute majority 7 votes, which is not that much further ahead of four net votes: 4-0 / 5-1 / 6-2. 'Four net votes' is an Arbitration Committee minimum voting requirement, along with a standard waiting period, for certain types of appeals. It is a measure put in place to ensure appeals do not remain in limbo forever and it is used quite regularly. If I could change one thing, it would be more consistent and even participation while active and to encourage Arbitrators to go inactive more often when they need it. All that being said, I have been very fortunate to have the opportunity to work with some really great people on the committee over the past two years. Being on phone calls, chatting on IRC, and emailing nearly everyday is a unique experience on Wikipedia (or at least for me) and so you end up working a lot more closely together than perhaps some might assume.

Questions from David Tornheim

2. I noticed that you did not participate in this RfC asking 'Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?’  Were you aware of this RfC with hundreds of respondents? If so, is there a reason why you did not weigh in?

   Yes, I was aware of the RFC. I intentionally did not participate because I was aware that it was loosely connected to a situation at ANI that related to WP:ARBAPDS / WP:CIVIL. The two major issues we hear about the most at ARCA relate either to discretionary sanctions or civility. Being appointed to the Arbitration Committee does mean stepping back from certain community processes. We are here to serve in a very specific capacity when all other forms of community dispute resolution processes have been exhausted. Separating myself from areas of potential crossover is a way to ensure the integrity of the position and alleviate any concerns with respect to making involved decisions. Obviously others committee members participated and I do not necessarily think it compromises their ability to provide an impartial decision should a case come forward, but I made the commitment to reduce any uncertainty during my term.

4. If you had weighed in, what would your answer have been?

   As I mentioned in question one, I intentionally did not participate. If I were to weigh in, I would have done so at the RFC. At the end of the day, I strongly believe context is important. Hypothetical scenarios without any details about the circumstance or individuals involved are usually nearly impossible to evaluate and say definitively whether it is appropriate or not. There are a million exceptions to every rule and I have yet to see a perfect rule or position that accounts for all situations.

6. Is it okay to say 'fuck off' in anger to other editors?

   Please see my answer to question one and two.

8. Is it okay to say 'fuck off’ to another editor in a dispute over content or when one believes the other editor to be breaking Wikipedia rules?

   Please see my answer to question one and two.

10. What is your opinion about use of ad hominems?

    WP:NPA provides strict requirements that editors must adhere to with respect to Wikipedia.

12. Is it acceptable to use pejorative labels of other editors such as climate-change-denier, anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, etc., (especially without diffs) to discredit them in a dispute that has nothing to do with the topic under consideration?

    I would need to review the situation and circumstances surrounding the dispute in order to make a determination.

14. According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain.

    I have no experience or knowledge on this topic and no additional insight than the next person on how Encyclopædia Britannica writers approach their topics. Honestly, I do not really see the relevance of the question with respect to the Arbitration Committee as they do not decide on matters of content.

16. The U.S. National Institute of Health explains Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Health here. Is it appropriate for our articles to describe these treatments in WP:Wikivoice as pseudoscience? Is it appropriate to use Stephen Barrett's work and publication in Quackwatch as a primary source to discredit such treatments rather than publication in highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine?

    Same answer as question 7.

Question from Atsme

2. Do you have the time and patience necessary to devote to this highly taxing responsibility, and by that I mean not judging an editor based on preconceived notions without careful examination of the case or simply agreeing with aspersions cast by opposing editors you may know and trust without personally investigating the diffs in the context the challenged editor intended, or waiting until other arbs have posted their conclusions and simply agreeing in an effort to avoid making waves? My primary concern is that some arbs are accepting the position when it’s quite obvious they neither have the time nor the patience required to actually read the diffs provided as evidence to make sure they were presented in the context originally intended by the challenged editor.

   You bring up a very important point. As a current member of the Arbitration Committee, the past two years have given me a pretty clear sense of what is involved. During that time, in 2017 and 2018, we have had members on the committee who did not participate much. I do not mean marked as inactive, but who remain "active" yet rarely participate or only selectively participate. We have certain procedure for situations that require us to achieve an absolute majority, net four votes, consensus, etc. Non-participating active members can create a stalemate, especially if they respond to only some cases and not others (which prevents them from being marked as inactive). Courcelles references this a bit in their answer to Liz's question. For example, there are appeals that have sat in queue for weeks in limbo with only a handful of opinions awaiting more input. The threads eventually get bumped back up and someone whips the votes and it gets done, but it creates delays. It is partly why in September I voted to reduced the size of the committee. Obviously this does not specifically prevent this problem from occurring, but it does reduce the numbers required for an absolute majority. As I mentioned in my candidate statement, I consider myself one of the more 'active participating' and clerical members, so I am happy to do so again for a second term.

4. Under what conditions are you willing to recuse yourself from an arb case, particularly one involving an editor (either filer or filed against) that you have either previously shown ill-will toward, perceived or otherwise?

   I am trying to figure out the last time I was dragged to ANI but it has been years (which I have now probably jinxed). An 'enemy' who became a friend was Sturmvogel 66. We had a stupid disagreement about the article HMS Curacoa (D41). I was wrong and always regretted that incident. It often reminds me that I should be better at supporting content writers. In the end, we got the article to GA status. In the very unlikely event Sturmvogel 66 was ever an involved party in a case, I would recuse myself. If Yunshui ever went bananas, I would recuse myself. Not that we have shown any ill-will to each other, but he did nominate me for adminship. Also, I just recused myself on the current case request as a fellow running candidate. WP:INVOLVED and WP:RECUSAL provide pretty clear instructions and it is usually best to err on the side of caution.

Thank you for your thoughtful answers, Mkdw. ^{Atsme ✍🏻 📧}

Questions from Carrite

2. Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Wikipedia content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Wikipedia Sucks!, Wikipedia Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Wikipedia or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite ( talk) 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I do not have an account at any off-wiki venues for criticism. I probably registered for a Reddit account at some point. I used to occasionally read TIL but not for many years nor have I ever used Reddit for anything related to Wikipedia. I am not overly familiar with these websites though I am aware of some of them because we are sent links or screenshots from time to time. The stuff we are sent is not the 'positive value' stuff, so if it does exist, I have not seen it. These websites are often discussed on Wikipedia and I am well aware that they are controversial. If I knew Wikipedia from only the stuff sent to the Arbitration Committee, I would not have a favourable opinion about it either, but what keeps me way is when certain practices like doxxing are permitted. Also, believe me, I spend a lot of time reading criticisms about Wikipedia on ArbCom. Criticism has an important role to play in society right alongside journalism. If one of these websites had a set of ethics and standards they followed which aligned with my values, I would consider reading it.

4. The Wikimedia foundation began issuing site bans (“SanFranBans”) of Wikipedians deemed unacceptable for participation several years ago, beginning by making a case for such exclusions on child protection grounds, but gradually disposing of inconvenient individuals for a range of other transparently obvious reasons. These exclusions are made by one or a very few individuals with no oversight and no process for appeal. Do you feel that this growing trend of WMF permanently banning individuals from participation on all Wikimedia projects is problematic, or is this intervention beneficial? Do you feel that each and every ban so far implemented by San Francisco has been justified? Do you feel that San Francisco banning individuals for reasons beyond child protection or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Wikipedia's discipline committee? Carrite ( talk) 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I think we need to pay attention to it. I have been supportive of the WMF becoming more involved in cases that are simply not appropriate for volunteers to handle. I find it shocking if previously their involvement was limited to only child protection and threats of physical violence. Anything involving the law should fall within their jurisdiction, such as extortion, hacking, severe invasions of privacy, stalking, legal threats, and then there are issues we are simply not equipped to handle such as mental health crises and addiction. The WMF could also be more involved with paid editing issues. The Arbitration Committee has been involved with some of these WMF Global Bans and the reasons are not always obvious despite the confidence of some who think they have it definitively figured out. Never underestimate the ability for someone to surprise you when they are at their lowest.
   
   We have a good team at WMF Legal and in my opinion, their assessment of inconvenient and annoying tends to be much more lenient than our governing community policies and guidelines. For example, our policies on harassment, outing, privacy, and checkuser, exceed the requirements of WMF Legal. There have been situations where the WMF has declined to implement a WMF Global Ban at the request of the Arbitration Committee; there have been WMF Global Bans that would not be implemented without the support of the Arbitration Committee; and there have been WMF Global Bans that we have no information about. Without question there has been an increase in the number of bans being issued and we should be keeping an eye on it. One day we may find ourselves with a different WMF Legal / Trust and Safety team who are not acting in the same way or in alignment with our community's best interests where we are required to act as a committee or a community or both.

Questions from Oshwah

2. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?

   Availability during the times we specifically outline plays a big factor in my decision process. Depending on the year, we typically need one or two additional people broadly and then one or two people who are able to cover significant gaps in our coverage. We have not appointed a lot of qualified candidates simply because they were not available for the times we needed. The other qualities I look for in a candidate are trustworthiness and maturity. My ideal candidate is someone who has had some life experience and been in a position of responsibility, so when things "get real", they have something beyond editing or just school to help inform their decisions. A lot young people thinks this disqualifies them from being eligible which is not true. I have met a lot of remarkable young people who have lived a lifetime's worth of experience and responsibility. I am not saying the bar is that high, but I want candidates who have faced adversity in an adult setting and with consequences. Finally, I want someone who has been able to demonstrate a consistent level of good judgement and responsibility. 6 to 12 months of 'best' behaviour editing does not adequately satisfy my confidence that if one day they deal with a serious situation, they will be able to act clearly and decisively and adequately assess when they should ask for help.

Question from Feminist

2. How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?

   The Arbitration Committee does attract newcomers and outsiders. We tend to not think about them or these instances because their case requests are usually quickly declined (we had three in the last two weeks: [7], [8], [9]), or inquiries that do not fall within the responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee. They are usually provided information about dispute resolution or recommended to another venue such as WP:TEAHOUSE, WP:HELPDESK, and WP:OTRS. The arbitration process is a dizzying and complicated process even with guide to arbitration. I am not entirely sure if I have an answer on how to make arbitration more palatable or easy to understand for outsiders or experienced editors. I think if people can have patience and answer basic questions, or at least direct them to resources, it goes a long ways.
   
   The resources that are available for newcomers to Wikipedia have steadily improved over the years. The Teahouse was established six years after I first began editing Wikipedia. The Article Wizard and File Upload Wizard have gone through their versions. OTRS, UTRS, ACC, and many other support projects have been deployed to help readers and editors who require assistance. Encouraging and supporting these projects and new ones is a worthwhile effort. I would like to see greater visibility for WMF Labs Training Modules and WP:TOOLS which I find very helpful even as an experienced editor. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is a human-driven project that relies on the friendliness and hospitality of volunteers to help educate and assist new editors.

Thank you. feminist ( talk) 14:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. I am rehashing most of my 2015 questions because I don't think that these issues have been resolved over the past three years. Enjoy!

Current Disputes and Cases

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

   Someone who does not recommend me for a second term before asking me a bunch of questions. Totally kidding!
   
   In most cases, I view implementing a ban as a measure of last resort. The exception being severe violations of some of our most important safety and protection policies, such as WP:CHILDPROTECT and WP:HARASSMENT. If an editor has been able to demonstrate that they are able to be a productive editor in other areas of the project then I am usually in favour of a topic ban or some other restriction to remove that element from their editing experience. If an editor is subject to a topic ban and continues to violate their sanctions or continues to be disruptive in other areas or ways, then a ban should be considered. In my experience, no two situations have ever been the same and evaluating situation each on a case-by-case is the best protocol.

4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way, shape, or form. At one time, a remedy called a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?

   The issue with incivility on Wikipedia is not because we lack the tools to deal with the problem. We have everything we need save for the willingness to consistently hold editors accountable who have demonstrated a recurring inability to act in a civil way. Until a culture that values civility over content creation is established, civility will always remain one of the most adverse issues that affects the community.

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

   Yes, although I believe the situation has improved over the years and continues to get better. In 2017 and 2018, three cases principally examined administrative conduct: Arthur Rubin, Magioladitis 2, and Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. In one, ADMINACCT was the primary focus of the case and the individual was desysopped for not meeting those expectations. The other involved ADMINACCT and a number of other issues that ultimately led to desysops and several sanctions. In each case, the committee took appropriate preventative actions required to address the locus of the dispute. Even so, resigning under a cloud has become a practice that has allowed individuals to avoid further scrutiny from the community or the Arbitration Committee, such as the Andrevan case request. It is difficult to know in those situations whether desysop would have been the only outcome and those situations should be considered.

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

   Yes, but they are mostly procedural. If a 'fact of finding' determines an editor acted inappropriately or exceeded community norms in violation of policy, then a warning documents the Arbitration Committee's position should no other sanctions be placed against the individual. Otherwise there might be a perception that such conduct has no consequences and therefore is permitted.

Insider Baseball

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

   It depends on the case and how the workshop is used. The trend has been for the workshop to be used by mostly the community and the proposed decision phase for the committee and voting. The issue with bringing the full committee onto the workshops is that it requires a considerable amount of time to read through all the proposals and discussions. Many of which lack merit and not based upon evidence. While this view may put me in the minority, I think it is important to manage our time and have realistic expectations. Under ideal circumstances we would have the full committee thoroughly involved during the entire case. There is a reason why we have drafting arbitrators and while there are certainly less cases now, the current response times on case requests, ARCAs, and emails, there does not seem to be an excess of availability or activity. A more reasonable approach would be to double the number of drafting arbitrators and bring the full committee alternative proposals and voting during the proposed decision phase. If the decision, in principle, is made to bring the full committee in during the workshop but this does not occur, which I think has a very high chance of occurring, then we have created a situation where the workshop and proposed decision phase will take a significant amount of time (or perhaps even longer).

Question from Beyond My Ken

2. Lots o' people seem to think this election is about civility, for some reason. ArbCom deals with the behavior of editors, of course, so civility will often play a part in the cases that are requested, and in those that are accepted and adjudicated, but damaging the integrity of the encyclopedia is also a behavioral issue, and it's one that has the potential for sinking Wikipedia by destroying the public's faith in the information we provide. Fortunately, much of the NPOV, racist, sexist, ethnic-biased and nationalistic edits and editors get caught by editors and admins, and those cases never reach the Committee, but I'm concerned that our current apparent fixation on civility might be distracting us from the more serious problem of NPOV editing. ArbCom has done a great deal -- with Discretionary Sanctions -- in trying to control this, but I wonder if there isn't more that can be done. Do you have any thoughts about how the Committee can assist the community -- both editors and admins -- to protect the integrity of our product?

   A lot of people have chosen to make civility the top priority, not only during this election, but in general. We have no consensus in our community as to where to draw the line. Likewise, the issue of civility has been one of the most challenging and polarizing issues to deal with effectively. As I mentioned above, I think the Super Mario problem has been improving and similarly civility related issues, but there is still a substantial gap between the way some editors are treated compared to others. Without question, making it one of our more controversial issues on the 'number of lives' someone receives, rightly or wrongly, on whether significant content creation somehow places civility as being valued second.
   
   Over the past decade, the reputation of Wikipedia has steadily improved. Google and Wikipedia have almost become synonymous and probably equal in popularity in everyday vocabulary. NPOV and undisclosed paid editing still remains one of the biggest threats to the project and some work is being done there that has not been announced yet. Editors at SPI have become more experienced in spotting undisclosed paid editing and cases like Conduct of Mister Wiki editors has demonstrated a willingness to firmly act. Discretionary sanctions have been proven effective other types of NPOV situations. The committee is part of the community and by all of us supporting editors working to address these issues, I see the situation moving in the right direction.

Question from Amanda

2. If there was a block appeal to ArbCom by email for an indefinitely blocked user for spamming or BLP violations, and you were the one to reply to the user, how would you handle it? Would you discuss the block on the list first?

   Any appeal sent to the Arbitration Committee should be discussed on the list before being actioned. While some cases seem obviously not suited for the Arbitration Committee to review, it is always a good idea to have multiple people reach the same conclusion. As for the appeal, it would depend if it met the criteria for appeals that fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. Provided it does, I would look into the matter and provide any additional information I have come across, any useful links for ease of navigation, and my opinion on whether to decline or accept the appeal and under what conditions. If not, the individual should be referred back their talk page or UTRS.

4. Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.

   I seem to be in the minority view on #Insider Baseball. I was the lone oppose on this proposed decision and only abstain on the PD above it. Same here and I am sure there are more examples. Not too long ago on the mailing list there was a lengthy discussion where only two of us, NYB and myself, were opposed to declining the appeal. I strongly felt there was no evidence to support the rationales for decline being presented by others, but we were soundly outvoted. Once the final decision was made, I was the one who sent the decline decision to the individual. In that situation it was not necessary for me to be the one, but at the same time I respect the process and support the way the committee reaches decisions. I do not believe we have to vote all the same way, but there is a real potential for disruption when one person cannot let go of a fairly reached committee decision and decides to act on their own.

6. Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?

   I cannot make a guarantee but I definitely make an effort and read the vast majority, if not all in most months, when I am marked active. I will seek to do the same should I be re-elected. Currently, I am recused on the Fred Bauder case and I have set up a filter to auto-move those threads to a folder. There are some threads I know I do not need to read like all the replies to the WMF monthly conference call about who can attend and who cannot. Sometimes I get on and a thread has already reached a majority and you can tell pretty quickly it's a clear cut case. Sometimes you look at a thread and one person says 'global block not our call' and two other people agree. In those situations I might not read the initial appeal. Otherwise, I tend to be active and read everything.

8. Admin socking is a rare area ArbCom has the remit to deal with. If your [you are] brought a case of admin socking, are you willing to go through the investigatory process and potentially vote to desysop an admin? Especially if your [you are] met with silence (or a lack of a defense) from the admin?

   We (ArbCom) just had a discussion about phasing out the word remit. ;)
   
   Investigating administrative misconduct is one of the Arbitration Committee's most important roles. Administrators who abusively use multiple accounts are an area of serious concern and in doing so would absolutely constitute desysopping. In order to reach that finding, as I mentioned above, "due process" should be followed and the individual granted an opportunity to explain the situation. They should be given a reasonable amount of time to respond, especially if they cease activity. Absenteeism is not a way to skirt responsibility or avoid consequences so at a certain point, a decision needs to be made with or without their participation.

10. How familiar are you with the privacy policy and access to non-public data policy? What is one part you find interesting about one of them and why?

    I am familiar with both, especially amid the WMF's recent efforts to update numerous confidentiality, privacy, and access policies and agreements, including an upcoming new Arbitration Committee agreement. I am concerned about some of the changes and the potential for some of these clauses to be rigidly interpreted. WMF Legal has given us some assurances verbally, but there is nothing to stop the next WMF General Counsel from taking a literally interpretation of the restrictions as outlined in the updated 'Access to nonpublic personal data policy'. As such, we have expressed a desire for the WMF to provide an additional written statement of clarification on certain common community practices performed by our functionary team and disclosures.

Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question by K.e.coffman

2. With the rise of far-right and hate groups online, are you concerned that editors espousing such beliefs may try (or are already attempting) to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda? Why or why not? If yes, what role do you think ArbCom could play, if any, in counteracting their influence on Wikipedia? K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   The issue of POV pushing has been raised several times in this election and obviously a point of concern for many. Some of these severe POV pushing editors or groups are nothing but diligent and relentless and so we as a community must also be just as diligent and relentless in defending our core values like NPOV. As I mentioned above in my response to BMK, the committee should be willing to supporting editors who are working in this area by acting decisively in making tough calls when matters reach us. I think the community has done a good job over the years identifying these areas and certain measures like discretionary sanctions have proven effective. WP:AE will be an increasingly important venue and could use more overall participation. When the committee receives feedback from the editors who are working there, we should be willing to listen to their recommendations.

Question by Rschen7754

2. In 2018, you proposed a motion on functionary inactivity: [10] When do you believe inactive functionaries (CU, OS, other functionaries-en subscribers i.e. ex-arbs) should have their status removed? What about inactive arbitrators? -- Rs chen 7754 04:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I would like to see audits done twice a year and individuals who do not meet the requirements have the tools removed with the understanding that the tools can be returned at any time upon request to the Arbitration Committee. More work is being done with respect to the activity requirements and I am pleased to see the committee has been much more cohesive in adhering to the current policy and procedure, which was not necessarily the case before. The discussion around account security continues to be a divisive point but overall I do think the team has been working towards better practices. For example, have seen adoption of 2FA from the majority of the functionaries.
   
   Inactive members of the committee is a different issue and I have spoken a bit about it in my answers to Liz and Atsme. Arbitrators tend to go in and out of activity on a regular basis, myself included. The commitment is different and I do not think it is necessary to remove the tools unless there is a significant probability the individual will not be coming back, at which point the issue is more about resignation than removal. How and when that is determined is a delicate subject and the fact that committee members are appointed by the community cannot be overlooked. In the case where someone did resign but retained the tools, the normal functionary activity requirements would apply.

Questions from User:Smallbones

2. Could you discuss your general philosophy toward enforcing our rules on undisclosed paid editing? Another candidate has said that our rules on UPE are weak, but the terms of use are quite specific: UPE is prohibited. What level of "proof" is required before you'd ban somebody for paid editing? Do admins need to follow these rules, or should they be held to a higher standard?

   I made a statement in 2017 that goes into detail about my position on undisclosed paid editing which has not changed much. The biggest problem with our policies is the lack of agreement on what constitutes as undisclosed paid editing and conflict of interest editing. On that point, the terms are very vague and unhelpful. If an employee edits the article about their company, are they an undisclosed paid editor or are they editing with a conflict of interest? Without additional information, it is not possible to strictly identify the issue. If the TOU simply meant being employed requires a disclosure with respect to any contribution, the line "receive, or expect to receive, compensation" would not need to qualify the circumstance. The additional problem about what to do when undisclosed paid editing has been discovered remains a point of debate. WP:PAID does not specify an individual may be blocked and WP:BLOCK mentions nothing about undisclosed paid editing.
   
   A teacher and the publicist for the regional school board edits an article about a local high school. They both update non-controversial information such as perhaps the current school principal or something similar. Are they both undisclosed paid editors who should be banned? My opinion would be yes for the publicist if they willfully violated the TOU and no for the school teacher. I think it is a long and convoluted roadmap to demonstrate the school teacher expected to receive direct or indirect compensation for the edit. Others within the community and on the committee have a different point of view and take a much more lenient or restrictive view. The evidence requirement in either situation is a delicate one and I have concerns about violating the privacy of editors within our community. Most of the time it is obvious to spot undisclosed paid editing, or the editor can be sanctioned under other policies such as WP:PROMO or WP:NOTHERE. Checkuser has been our most effective tool and in many cases editors who have been subject to a block or ban will often voluntarily disclose their relationship to the topic if they are appealing their block. We have also had instances where companies have been willing to work with us to resolve the matter. Usually they were misled and were not aware of the TOU and have a vested interest in protecting their brand and reputation.
   
   Admins are expected to uphold a "high standard of conduct" and follow WP:ADMINCOND. The Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case involved paid editing and an administrator. I strongly agree with the outcome of the case and if the admin had not resigned the tools under a cloud before the case concluded, I would have voted for desysop as they "actively and willfully engaged in activities to avoid scrutiny". Such activities are not compatible with the trust and confidence required by the community for adminship.

4. This summer I sent a private complaint to arbcom about an administrator who had very obviously inserted material from one of his employer's press releases into the article about the company without making a COI or Paid Editing disclosure. The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI. I was not informed about how the proceedings were being conducted, or who actually voted on the decision, or why the admin was not considered to be a paid editor, or even why he did not have to declare his COI. I was informed in a very short email signed by a single arb when the decision had been made, but there was very little information in the email. My request for clarification didn't result in any clarification. I understand you can't comment on the case itself, but can you comment on how such a case should be conducted?

   The Arbitration Committee is bound by a fairly restrictive policy and confidentiality agreement. Anything sent to the Arbitration Committee is deemed strictly confidential and any disclosures could potentially be seen as violating that confidentiality agreement. Even notifying you that there was a "conflict of interest" could be argued as a disclosure that violates confidentiality -- though I do not suspect that bridge will need to be crossed. Without question it is a difficult situation to navigate and the desire for transparency, even among those on the committee is highly restricted. It is why I have placed an emphasis on ensuring the community appoint members with whom they trust to make these decisions.
   
   Generally speaking, a complaint about undisclosed paid editing should go to the full committee for assessment. If credible, the individual(s) should be notified of the complaint and given an opportunity to explain the situation. The committee should then decide if a full case is required or if the matter can be resolved in a different way, such as a warning, sanction, or a finding of no violation. The Arbitration Committee does not set policy, so until admins are required by policy to disclose instances of conflicts of interest, I am vehemently opposed the committee imposing policies by fiat in opposition to community policies and guidelines on members of the community.

Questions from Hijiri88

2. What is your opinion on the essay WP:CPUSH, and do you think ArbCom should take special care in handling the kind of cases it is describing in the future?

   POV pushing has been widely discussed during this election. As I mentioned in my answer to K.e.coffman, it is certainly something that deserves our attention and diligence in addressing. As with civility, the Arbitration Committee has not had a particularly effective track record in dealing with the issue. The fact that the committee does not decide on matters of content significantly reduces its ability to handle POV pushing due to content and conduct often being indistinguishably connected. Furthermore, POV pushing tends to take place over long periods of time, making cases long and complicated. The best we can do is rely on trusted editors in the community to identify disruptive editors and bring well-reasoned cases against them. The committee should be prepared to make difficult and perhaps unpopular decisions in order to defend the integrity of the project. In areas of widespread conflict, discretionary sanctions should be considered. In the end, I would like to think that Wikipedia's commitment to NPOV content will outlast and out perform those who are willing to disrupt our project.

4. Do you agree with this definition of "hounding", and the additional comment DGG left during ArbCom's !voting on it, particularly as it may relate to concerns over another editor's ability to properly read and interpret or concerns that an editor who has plagiarized a lot of text before may do so again? (Please note that this does not relate especially to my specific ArbCom case, nor to anyone involved in it; I just really like the definition as it is clearer than the one that's currently at WP:HOUND, and DGG's comment especially was something that honestly I would have liked to see enshrined in the final decision, and perhaps in any future statements ArbCom may make on the issue.)

   Yes, but I think the issues surrounding HOUNDING are much more complicated. Without question, anyone decently familiar with counter-vandalism, copyright violations, NPOV, and many other areas of Wikipedia clean up, understand monitoring and follow-up is often required. Editors who have good intentions but unknowingly breach our policies and guidelines, may require help ensuring their "good intentions" do not end up damaging the project. Editors willfully disrupting the project must be stopped through our warning and blocking procedures. Where I believe acceptable following turns into HOUNDING is when the following individual ceases to be impartial in their decision making, even if they originally began in "good faith". In my experience, most continue believing they are still acting in "good faith" and are justified in their actions even when the line has been crossed into HOUNDING. Thereby, being unable to self-assess their situation and step back. When a conflict between two individuals is a matter of opinion and not a matter of clear policy, then following around does not seem like a good idea and best reported to someone uninvolved.

Questions from Winged Blades of Godric

2. Hi, Mkdw:-) Thanks for running! That, you have the special-goggles, do you feel using the sledgehammer of suppression over here, about a week, after the redacted-comments have been made (and prob. already heavily viewed courtesy the AN threads and finally the ArbCase) was optimal esp. in light of Iri's comment over here? Please elucidate.Thanks!

   I am recused on matters related to Fred Bauder as a fellow running candidate. It would not be appropriate for me to un-recuse and use privileged information to answer this question which could potentially influence the outcome of the election.

Thanks! I will be eager to hear your reply and stand on the issue. ∯WBG ^converse 13:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from Piotrus

2. Have you read this academic paper on ArbCom? Anything you agree/disagree/find interesting? (Disclaimer: I am the paper's author. I am not looking for pats on the back, but I am genuinely curious if you heard of it, read it, and what do you think of it; feel free to be critical of it, I am interested in your honest opinion on whether such research is useful, not in having my ego stroked). PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me back. TIA. @ Mkdw: It is publicly accessible through Google, Google Scholar, and at least two other ways. See [11]. PPS. It does indeed seem that it's difficult to find a free version of the paper online, and even academia.edu has only the abstract, but Sci Hub does have a copy and should be accessible and fast worldwide. Do let me know if you have any troubles using that platform. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

   I have not read it and it is [still seemingly] not publicly accessible.
   
   The link you subsequently provided for David Tornheim does not open for me. Google Scholar brought me back to the same paywall at Sagepub. On Zenodo, only the abstract is available for preview and download as a 38kB file. I am not familiar with academia.edu but it seems to requires me to register to access its content. ResearchGate and a few other Google results did not net me any better options, so if you would still like me to review your article, please consider publishing it some where publicly accessible, such as Wikisource, and provide me with a direct link here on this page, or you may email it to me.

Question from User:BU Rob13

2. In the past, the Arbitration Committee's role in dispute resolution had been described as "break[ing] the back[s]" of disputes the community is unable to resolve. Sometimes, this involved taking actions unpopular with the community or actions that were criticized as "draconian". More recently, I would say the Committee has become more hesitant to act unless their actions would have widespread support in the community, especially when those actions affect popular editors (or, less charitably, unblockables). At the center of this is a concern that taking decisive action on a dispute could lead to consequences, but in my experience, the default action of doing nothing often carries consequences as well. Further, doing nothing or taking only minor actions that do not resolve the underlying dispute often narrows the workable options available to the Committee, turning difficult-to-solve disputes into nearly unsolvable disputes. Could you comment on these two general schools of thought and what your approach to arbitration would be? More directly, do you think it is sometimes necessary to take unpopular or draconian actions to "break the back" of a dispute, or should such actions always be avoided?

   We have spent the past year on the committee together which should give you a pretty clear sense about my position. Like DGG and a few others, I disagree with your description that the committee has become "more hesitant to act" without the support of the community. And really, not many times come to mind where the committee was faced with a problem the rest of the community had been unable to result and the decision was to not act because there was no support. In the past two years, several cases have resulted in desysop, blocks, and sanctions. Some of them not being popular decisions. We have also granted some appeals that were not warmly received either.
   
   Split decisions resulting in no action have been problematic and I mentioned this in another answer above. However, these are about a lack of consensus and not necessarily about choosing to not act because there is little community support. Being on the Arbitration Committee requires diplomacy, care, and common sense. Sometimes acting too harshly or heavy handedly can have just as many negative consequences as acting too lightly. It is a balance we continuously seek to find; resolving critical disputes with the least amount of impact on the community as possible. We should be listening to what the rest of the community has to say, but I am also willing to take an unpopular action if I feel it is necessary. Privacy issues have been one of our most important responsibilities and often the community does not have all the information available making our actions appear draconian raising concerns and opposition. I have firmly stood by those actions and always reiterate the importance of appointing individuals with whom the community trusts to act responsibility to the committee when transparency is not possible.

Question from User:Grillofrances

2. What do you think about reverting an edition which provides true information, 100% of the info is based on reliable sources, it's objective, grammatically correct, not offending anybody and useful for the article but it's reverted because a new editor just claims this info is redundant?

   It would depend on the context and content. If the information is inappropriately redundant, it should be removed. E.g., "John Smith is Canadian. John Smith is Canadian." If both had reliable sources and the underlined sentence was added, regardless of whether the editor was new or not, a revert with the rationale "info is redundant" would be correct. We have certain WP:MOS guidelines that allow some information to be repeated in an article, such as the WP:LEAD, but otherwise editorial practices would mean the second sentence would need to be removed
   
   If you have a specific situation in mind, please provide the link.

Question from User:Ryk72

Discretionary sanctions (DS) now cover more than 30 topic areas (per WP:DSTOPICS).

2. In determining the "effectiveness" of DS, what factors should be taken into account?

   I would first look at whether the discretionary sanctions are being used. If notices are being issued appropriately and editors are being blocked if they violate the sanctions. Community feedback is important and one metric is to examine whether the topic area continues to appear before community dispute resolution processes and eventually the Arbitration Committee. Also, I believe that even the presence of DS in an area can reduce conflict much in the same way WP:3RR deters edits from edit warring. If edit warring is down and 3RR violations are low or non-existent, I would consider it successful.

4. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

   WP:NEWBLPBAN has been a DS topic area that stands out. American Politics 2, ARBPIA, and ARBIPA have been used a lot as evident at WP:DSLOG. NEWBLPBAN DS are also logged and it is apparent they are being used. DS along with BLP governance policies and guidelines, and noticeboards like WP:BLPN, have provided the community with several ways to deal with the huge topic area. DS were always meant to compliment the existing community process, not replace them, and to provide administrators and editors dedicated to protecting Wikipedia with an additional tool. Biographies of living people is such a large topic area yet I do feel the community now has the necessary tools to deal with it and the problems in those areas are about manpower and fighting other issues like promotional editing, NPOV, etc.

6. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS not been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

   Sorry Ryk72, I did not have time to finish answering all the questions before the end of the voting period. Things became quite busy with ArbCom due to several case requests and ARCA filings as well as the usual appeals and incident reports received by the committee by email. Mkdw ^talk 21:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

8. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been effective in addressing conduct or behavioural issues, but otherwise detrimental to the encyclopedia? If any, in what ways & why?

10. Other than DS, what measures could ArbCom take in addressing conduct issues? Which, if any, of these alternatives should ArbCom take?

12. Of which of your contributions to Wikipedia are you most proud? Why?

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Question from User:Ryoung122

2. Greetings, I believe in Wikipedia's core policies of NPOV, NOR, RS, AGF, etc. in theory. I also believe in long-term stability, history, and prudence(as with recently departed US President George W Bush) However, too often the editorial process at Wikipedia is akin to sausage-making (or worse): "you don't want to know what goes into it". Too often, it seems that a few Wikipedia editors get away with Wiki-owning, Wiki-lawyering, etc. and tend to run/chase off newbies, nice people, editors normally outside the topic area, and the like. Instead of having a hypothetical GRG and NPOV/NOR establish a balance, it seems that some editors, often a small POV group, self-appoints themselves dictators of topic areas, and sets up editing that is POV-biased, violates GRG, violates NOR, and basically lowers the quality and long-term value of the Wikipedia coverage of the topic area. Too often, it seems, that little is done because rarely is the dispute brought to ArbCom in the first place. In order to save time and prevent things from getting out of hand, might there be some kind of "Ombudsman" system whereby problems can be reported without having to get to a full-blown dispute first? Would you support efforts to rein in editors who typically violate Wikipedia policies regarding NPOV, NOR, GNG, AGF, etc.? Ryoung122 04:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

   Ryoung122, as I mentioned to Ryk72 above, I did not have time to finish answering all the questions before the end of the voting period. Things became quite busy with ArbCom due to several case requests and ARCA filings as well as the usual appeals and incident reports received by the committee by email. In short, the dispute resolution process includes several steps and if new procedures or policies are required, then the community could discuss and explore a number of new proposals. The community recently ( Nov 2018) disbanded the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee which sounds similar to what you propose. NPOV, civility, and a number of other issues have been issues within the community and ArbCom for quite some time. Dealing with these issues appropriately is not only the expectation, but the responsibility of the committee and those who are appointed. Mkdw ^talk 21:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply