Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/SilkTork/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

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?

   Hi Oshwah, thank you for setting up the first question. When I was previously on the Committee I felt I didn't have enough experience or knowledge of CU and OS to make judgements, so I didn't take part in the selections, though I did follow the conversations. After having used the tools myself for two years, I feel that this time round - if appointed - I would voice my opinion; so your question is apt, and allows me to reflect myself on what I would be looking for. I would favour users who are uncontroversial, and show evidence that they are thoughtful, mature, trustworthy, calm, and articulate. If, during the community feedback, serious or numerous concerns where raised about the user's suitability, that might make me change my mind. As an example, if someone pointed to the user revealing (accidentally or otherwise) another user's real name on an external site, I would likely withdraw support. SilkTork (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   Hi Gerda. To assist me in answering correctly, are you asking for my opinion on civility (which is what I assume), or are you asking me to reflect on all aspects of Opabinia regalis's comment, such as her opinion of TomStar81 changing his mind? I can give you an answer on civility today. To consider fully Opabinia regalis's response in relation to the ArbCom request would take a little longer, as it would involve looking into the details of the request, and what led up to it. SilkTork (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Thank you for asking, that's a good step. I am not asking about the change of mind. Civility is a very general topic, and when I asked the question (a year ago), it was about accepting a case request, - so, yes, I'd be more interested if you would have voted to accept or decline that request, with a short explanation, than another philosophy on civility. I read a good one today. - This question worked last year (and nothing more interesting came up in the meantime), so I used it again, trying to keep things simple and comparable. - I like two phrases in your statements especially, the phrase "a remarkable example of collaborative human achievement" and "we have needed the Committee less and less".

   Thanks Gerda. I agree that Coren's civility comment is a good one. I think we can sometimes conflate respect and consideration for others with language use. Respect and consideration we tend to agree on, use of language is a trickier area, and it is often there that opinions divide. I'll read through the request, and the related events that lead up to it. This may take me some time, so it's unlikely I'll be able to give you an answer today. SilkTork (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Whilst looking into answering this question, I noted this: [1]. Could someone check on that, as I'm not yet up to speed on this case, but it looks like with this edit [2] and then this edit [3], User:Joefromrandb is restoring this edit [4] twice within 24 hours, contrary to his restriction. SilkTork (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

   You answered, I think, don't waste time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

   Cool. I was just settling down to put together a response this morning, so that was timely! It's a nice morning here in Southampton, so I think we'll go for a walk in the woods instead! Thanks Gerda. SilkTork (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

6. I hope you enjoyed the walk as much as I did my place, fall colours! Back to work: I was mocking my restrictions once. Assuming you noticed, would you also have taken me to AE for that edit?

   Autumn is lovely! We've had such a brilliant year here in the UK, and now we have a lovely Autumn.

   Back to work: I would have spoken to you about it, and advised you not to do it again. You were clearly aware you had crossed the boundary of your restriction, but you also held back from going further, and had responded well to the imposition of the restriction in the first place. It was appropriate that the restriction was imposed, but also that it was later lifted, as at the time of the Infoboxes case there was a lot of tension, which can lead people to react strongly. I think there are few genuinely bad people on Wikipedia- just people who get worked up or get stubborn. We are here on Wikipedia because it matters to us. It is understandable that when something that matters to us gets challenged, we will respond. But if our response is too strong, and continues, then sometimes we need restrictions to help us calm down and relax. Two years later when you asked for the restrictions to be lifted, as you said, "The project is at peace." SilkTork (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

8. Thank you for your thoughts, but not quite to the admittedly pointy question. Was the edit against the spirit of the restriction, or is petty counting to 3 (or 2, in Joe's case) all it takes to cry for enforcement?

   Ah, you're talking about my comment above asking if someone could check if User:Joefromrandb was editing outside his restriction, and you'd like an explanation? OK. You asked me to look into a case request. So I started to look, and picked up comments about Joe's behaviour, so decided to take a look into his contributions and discussion, and I noted this on his talkpage: User_talk:Joefromrandb#Sourcing, and saw what appeared to be a violation of a restriction related to what you asked me to look into. I'm not yet up to speed on the case or the incident or the person, as I'd only just starting looking, but I saw something that looked temperamental and inappropriate. I have choices now. I can ignore it. I can report it. I can speak to Joe myself. As I'm not involved in the case, and don't know the background or the person, I don't feel it appropriate to report him, as I don't know what damage that will do. And I don't like ignoring it, because I'm now aware of it. I can either speak to Joe myself, or make a note for someone else to look into it. I recall I was in two minds what to do, and ended up leaving the comment here. In retrospect it would have been better to speak to Joe myself rather than asking someone else to do it, so I didn't make the best choice. I have now spoken to Joe directly, advising (warning) him to either move away from the article, or to engage in more productive discussions regarding the CN template. SilkTork (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you, - speaking to people is the best approach, I think (2015). What would you have told me (back to my question "would you also have taken me to AE?, and you said you would have spoken to me about it)? I made a third edit in an infobox discussion, yes, but it wasn't about infoboxes, simply defending my integrity, - my POV ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   Ha. I can't say now what I would have said then. It's like there are two lovers who briefly met and parted, and their lives went separate ways such that the love changed. They meet again as old people and one says: I would have proposed to you. And the other says: What would you have said? It's a different moment, a different time. What is said now would not be what was said back then. [5]. But I would have urged you to take more care not to put yourself in harm's way. SilkTork (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   Love it ;) - Harm certainly came, but in the end not for me. (And then I appealed, which I had been too proud to do until then: I had enough of that kind of wasted time.) - Perhaps a simple fact check then, my first arb cand question ever: Please describe what happens in this diff." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

   Superficially what happens is that Pigsonthewing moves basic information data from a collapsed box at the bottom of the article, to an uncollapsed box in a more prominent, visible (and conventional) position at the top of the page. The history shows progressive article development including the creation of an info box, and then Nikkimaria arrives with a view that basic information data should not be displayed prominently, and both before and after that edit there is some adjusting of how and where that basic information data should be placed. There is a discussion on the talkpage which accompanies the edits around the positioning and visibility of the basic data in the info box, and Nikkimaria gives her views on infoboxes. That Nikkimaria had differing views to yourself and Pigsonthewing regarding infoboxes is acceptable, and the appropriate way to deal with such differences is to discuss and negotiate. However, what was happening around that time is that the disagreement was spilling over into an "Infobox War" on a number of articles, such that an ArbCom case was opened. Ny views on Nikkimaria's behaviour were given at the time: [6] and [7]- I was uncomfortable with the way someone with her knowledge, intelligence, and experience was behaving, as I felt she was personalising this issue, and following you and Pigs around in order that her views on infoboxes should prevail. I was also unhappy with Pigsonthewing, and gave my views on his behaviour: [8]. These were not majority views, and Nikkimaria was not desysopped, and Pigsonthewing was not site-banned. Arising from that case your involvement in the Infoboxes War was restricted, and I supported that restriction with this comment: [9]. The case was not about infoboxes, even though it was termed that, it was about the behaviour of those prominent in the disagreement over the use and placement of infoboxes. The disagreement could have been over the naming of cats or if we need to cite that the sky is blue. Whatever. It was the way some people behaved that was the issue. While I think your behaviour on that article was appropriate - you sought consensus, and edited in an attempt to accommodate Nikkimaria's concerns, the evidence brought to the case was that later you were systematically inserting infoboxes without discussion, knowing that this would be contentious: [10]. So restricting your involvement in infoboxes would cease the aggravation. I didn't see you as a bad person, just as someone caught up in the heat of the moment, and that you needed assistance in breaking free of the conflict. Like avoiding going into pubs with someone who is trying to cut down on their drinking. Later, when the drinking is under control, you can return together to favourite taverns and inns. [11] SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for a good observation of what happened on that article which I created. - I will ignore the rest. I learned the hard way that every talk about infoboxes is a waste of time. I create them, and when they are reverted, I usually don't even bother to argue, only when I care deeply. Infoboxes for Kafka stories have never been contentious, and Kafka came to mind all the time during the socalled infoboxes case ;) - I am quite proud of my modest contributions to that article. - Last question: what do think about what Voceditenore said here, recently? You will remember her name from the infoboxes case, and if she nominated herself for arb I would vote for her without a question. Good luck for yours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

   She was once against infoboxes, and now she is for them. When they emerged I didn't like them, and I recall raising a few questions about them, considering if they were best placed at the top of the main body rather than in the lead. Quite quickly I could see that they were popular, so I accepted them. Such is the Wiki-way. We start something, or change something, and consensus emerges as to if it's OK to to continue. Sometimes people don't reach for consensus, they assert their views strongly possibly aggressively and disruptively, and the community attempts to reach a compromise, but fails, so a case arrives at ArbCom. The case isn't about the issue, but about the manner in which the issue is being dealt. In the infoboxcase, ArbCom wasn't being asked if infoboxes are right or wrong, or where or how they should be placed, it was being asked to look into the behaviour of those who were fighting over the boxes. If a case is brought to ArbCom in which Committee members hold strong opinions about either the people involved or the issues being discussed, then they should recuse. In ArbCom elections people will ask questions to see where a candidate stands on a particular issue, or where their sympathies lie. The most popular one concerns civility, as that has been a hot potato for years. People want to know if a candidate will come down hard on those who say cunt, or support their right to free speech, or any of the colours of the rainbow in between. You can put me down as the colours of the rainbow. And if a case came up in which I had views which were black or white, I would recuse.

   I have enjoyed your questions Gerda. Sometimes it's been like dancing with smoke trying to understand your intentions, but you've been polite, considerate, and imaginative. I sense you hold a resentment toward me dating back to the infobox case, and that you will be opposing me in the election. No worries. Since I was asked to nominate myself there have been a goodly number of respectable users who have put their names down, and quite possibly the largest number of ex-Committee members, such that the community will have to make an effort to appoint someone fresh, so I feel comfortable that the Committee will move forward safely with or without me. Personally speaking, I'd prefer to be on the Committee. I actually enjoy the sense of duty and of helping out. So if I don't get back on this year, I'll try again next. Thanks again! SilkTork (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

   I like "enjoyed" and "dancing". I try to not hold grudges, and to be as objective as I can, and to see the other's side also, but I confess that the concert I listened to the night I thought my friend would by banned is on my mind like yesterday. I wrote a DYK about it: ... that rehearsing Dvořák's Eighth Symphony, a conductor said: "Gentlemen, in Bohemia the trumpets never call to battle – they always call to the dance!"?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for your efforts, with today's flower! Back to the first question I believe that declining a cases may often be the best choice. If I was into user boxes, I'd make one for "This user survived the infoboxes case which should have been declined". But now the box for Kafka is my only one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

2. In a case that you were originally one of the drafters for, you proposed this motion which was controversial. Looking back, would you still have done so, or would you have done things differently? --Rschen7754 19:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

   Hi Rschen, thanks for the question. That motion was proposed by AGK with assistance from NYB. I had suspended the case and tried moderation: Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. The case was started by NYB and myself, and closed by AGK and NuclearWarfare. The motion was put forward because the Committee were finding difficulty in agreeing who was at fault, and the case was dragging on. I added myself to the motion in order to support it, and underline that with that motion we were looking to end the disruption which was specific to that article. We concluded the case with a more conventional topic-banning of individual users. If I were drafting that same case today, I would go straight for listing the more prominent users involved and having the Committee vote on topic-banning them. Does this mean that in future I wouldn't try out or support new ideas in resolving a case? No, it doesn't. We make progress by trying different things - not all new things work, but we don't know if they will or not until we try them. SilkTork (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

4. After your first term, you were given this barnstar where it was implied that you didn't enjoy being on ArbCom. Given that, why run again? --Rschen7754 19:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

   The circumstances are different now. I have commented on this on my talkpage: User talk:SilkTork#ARBCOM?. In brief - there were tensions in our particular Committee that made working there stressful at times. SilkTork (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Alex Shih

2. What is your stance on improving the transparency of ArbCom, and the idea of maintaining decorum and respect in mailing list discussions?

   Thanks for the question Alex. I prefer transparency, and when I was on the Committee I did advocate for more transparency - such as holding all case discussions on Wikipedia rather than mainly on the mailing list, but this was not a popular view. If appointed I would support any move toward greater transparency, but I wouldn't initiate such a move as I would prefer to use my time and energy on diminishing ArbCom as a whole. ArbCom was created to settle disputes. As the community has developed, we are better equipped to handle most disputes ourselves, so that aspect of the Committee is diminishing each year. But along the way, ArbCom picked up other roles - such as being an interface between the community and the Foundation. Boundaries blur at that point, though some sensible clarity has been achieved in recent years, such as asking people to contact the Foundation directly on issues such as child protection, rather than going through the Committee. I'm not sure how much interface remains - my preference would be to have none at all. Where there is still some blurring, such as the use of the CU and OS tools, the question arises as to who is legally responsible in a scenario such as if the Committee appoint someone as a CU, who then abuses the tool by revealing the whereabouts of a user who is subsequently seriously harmed and sues the Committee? It may be time for the Foundation to take full responsibility for CU and OS. The community can report concerns to the Foundation, and a paid member of the Foundation uses the tools and takes legal responsibility.
   As for the second part of your question. I think I am known for striving to be polite and respectful to everyone. I may not always achieve that. But I do work hard at treating everyone with respect, regardless of their behaviour. All of us can lose our temper at times, or make the wrong decision for what we feel are the right reasons. That doesn't make us bad people. I don't think I disliked anyone I dealt with when handling cases or unblock requests. I think it is perfectly possible to sanction someone without being disrespectful or rude to them. It is possible to disagree and argue with someone without being insulting. I have always enjoyed open and honest debate - sometimes debate is useful to explore one's own ideas, and I'm quite happy to change my mind when faced with reasonable alternatives. Disagreeing or debating with someone doesn't need to be hostile. SilkTork (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for your answer, SilkTork. The first part of my question is indeed focused on occasional discussions on the mailing list which may not have been confidential in nature. As a follow up if I may, could I ask that in accordance to your stance in favour of transparency, would you speak against (if you were appointed) for instance, non-confidential matters being discussed privately instead of on Wikipedia when there is an active case discussion that is taking place?

   In regards to the second part of this question, I think I may have been unclear. I am referring strictly to private discussions on the mailing list. As the rest of the community cannot access nor know what kind of discussions take places on these mailing lists, my question is that, do you think as a elected member of the committee, that there should be a minimal standard on what consist of appropriate behaviour on these mailing lists, comparable to what is to be expected when discussing publicly on Wikipedia? Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

   The template given for these questions is not very flexible - or if it is, I don't yet know how to use it. I have inserted a box to keep it clear where I am answering.

   When I was on the Committee, I did start a discussion about non-confidential cases being discussed openly on the case pages rather than privately on the mailing list, but the majority view was to continue with the status quo. If elected again, I wouldn't come in with the intent to start that discussion again, but if someone else did, I would certainly support them.

   Personally I didn't regard the mailing list as private so much as restricted. I still saw it as a formal venue, of which records are kept, and so I spoke there as I would on Wikipedia, with respect for those we were talking about, and with respect to the other members of the Committee. How others speak and behave in what they consider to be a private arena is up to them. Some folks like to have the ability to talk openly, and sometimes quite rudely, about other users, as a way of getting their emotions and thoughts in order. I am quite understanding and tolerant of that. Indeed, that is one of the stronger arguments for having a private venue. I allow people to email me privately on Wikipedia about admin or related matters. And I have sometimes emailed others to get their views on an issue or a user privately, and would not consider it appropriate to chide them for their language or the way they express their views. When I was a teacher it was quite common for some excellent and tolerant teachers to say in the privacy of the staff room, stuff like "That Giles is a little shit", and to get agreement and sympathy. What happens in the staff room stays in the staff room. SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

4. When, how and to what extent do you think any editor should be informed if they are being actively discussed by ArbCom in a matter that would immediately affect their future in this community?

   I'm not sure I get this Alex. Are you talking about emails to the Committee by people who have concerns over someone? If those concerns prove to be groundless, then there is no need to disturb the person who was accused. All over Wikipedia people are complaining about the activities of someone or other. If it's hot air, or a simple mistake, there's no need to notify anyone - that might just stir up bad feeling unnecessarily. If the Committee feels the matter needs investigating, the Committee in my time always got in touch with that person to get their side of the story. If I have misunderstood your question, please let me know. SilkTork (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for your answer again. To clarify, I am talking about in general, whenever there is concern over someone, whether it is from the community or occasionally from other venues. My experience is that occasionally a discussion can be had for weeks/months over concern for a particular editor and conclusions being made without the editor being notified until the very late stage. I guess I am trying to ask that if elected again, would you promote the idea of getting "their side of the story" first before reaching to a conclusion in a private mailing list? Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

   The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that I would be quite comfortable with even prolonged discussion on an individual to establish if there is a need to contact that person. And sometimes there may actually be value in not contacting someone in order for untainted evidence to be gathered. However, before any decision is made, an opportunity for an explanation should be offered. The exception to that is in an emergency - if an admin is destroying the front page or a CU is revealing private information, those are times when action is needed first, and questions asked later. SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Peacemaker67

2. Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?

   As with Gerda's question on a case, this will take some time to answer as I need to read the request, and the events leading up to it. I hope to have an answer for you within 24 hours, but it depends on what happens in real life! SilkTork (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

   Rather than spend a lot more time looking into the case and the background leading up to it, I'll instead respond by referring to my opening statement as it encapsulates my position on the theme of your question: "these days the main function of the Committee is in deciding when to accept or reject a case. Send a complex case back to the community, and we can end up with prolonged disruption and frustration with perhaps the wrong people leaving the project. Take on an easy case, and we weaken our community's resolve and confidence, allowing the community to rely too much on the backstop rather than finding solutions ourselves - something we are actually very good at doing." Does that mean that either I or the majority of the Committee will always make the right decision? No. Does it mean that when I come into the Committee they'll do things differently? No - the Committee have always striven to examine requests carefully. Does it mean that I will reflect even more on what cases to accept than I did when I previously served? No, I don't think so. I was aware of the situation then, and considered each case carefully. What it does mean is that I think the Committee and the community are together moving in the right direction, and I'd like to be a part of that rather than hinder it. And while we do learn from the past, that German War Effort case is not my past. If you want to pick a case that I accepted or declined when I was on the Committee and ask me if I would vote the same way now with the benefit of hindsight, I'd do that for you, and I think that might be useful. SilkTork (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

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

   No SilkTork (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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?

   Yes SilkTork (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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"?

   No. Yes. Yes. SilkTork (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

   I've just looked at Robert McClenon's response to this question. You've altered the wording slightly to make it less obvious, but he did pick up the clues that this is likely to refer to an actual case. If you're just asking for general principles, the answer is No. Yes. Yes. But if you have a particular case in mind which I don't know about, then it would be inappropriate for me to comment out of context. There may well have been valid reasons for whatever happened in that case which we don't know about. SilkTork (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

   OK. It appears you're asking about the 2015 case as that fits the description. I'll reflect first on your question about evidence being produced during the proposed decision phase. It is quite common for diffs to be supplied in the PD phase by those drafting findings of fact, and it is not uncommon for other Committee members to produce more diffs in order to fine tune the evidence. This is something that has happened in numerous cases. The diffs are to support the general principles which have already been outlined during the evidence and workshop phase. Several Committee members may add or amend the diffs at this stage. And while the Workshop page is there to start to build the Proposed decisions with the aid of the community, the PD page is where the Committee as a whole gets working on the case, and it can develop differently there than it has in the Workshop. I'm not going to comment at this point directly on your case, but I think you've touched on an aspect that is worth considering. I am clear in my mind that it is helpful and appropriate that new diffs and new solutions are sought during the full Committee Proposed Decision phase, and this may include considering new evidence. The PD talkpage is open during this stage for those involved in the case and the community to comment, and an alert Committee will keep an eye on that page. However, I don't think there is a formal requirement for the Committee to consider when they may have introduced new and significant evidence that may have a valid explanation or justify a response by the parties, and to then formally allow parties to the case to respond to this evidence. The Committee would rely on observers drawing attention to the situation. It might be worth opening a discussion that Clerks should warm the Committee when significant new evidence has been entered in the PD stage that might require a response from one or more parties.

   To return to your first two questions. The assumption during the request and the case is that parties are given time to respond, and I'm aware of times when the Committee has paused to allow a user time to respond before accepting a case. In the 2015 case, the request had been made on March 18 and opened on March 23, and you stopped editing Wikipedia on April 6, so you had time to write this essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia and shipwrights and distribute it to several users, including Jimbo Wales: [12]. During the request you made no mention of personal matters you had to attend, nor asked for time to present your evidence, instead saying: " I specifically decline to participate in a witch-hunt", then ask that the Committee examine your edits, saying "I trust my requests will be met as otherwise there is to be no evidence at all to be presented by me" concluding "These should not be onerous requests as otherwise I shall be mute. As such is the case, I am done with this case, come what will. Here I stand". Which appears to read that you intend no offer no evidence. Then you say on the 5th April, right at the end of the evidence phase, that you would need, partly due to the weight of evidence against you and personal commitments, until June 1st to provide an adequate response: [13], and the next day you stop editing Wikipedia until two weeks after the case has finished, leaving a Wiki-break message: "I am attending to personal business including medical and other issues and planned events etc. until roughly 15 June 2014" [14]. You may have done, but I can't see if you requested the case be paused, nor can I see if you privately contacted the Committee to keep them informed of what you were doing. Not that you needed to, but if your question relates to this case, then on the evidence I see, the Committee would not have been aware until the day you left that you intended to leave, and by that time the Evidence phase had closed, and the drafters would have started the Workshop phase. You had left your statement on the Evidence page and then went off to deal with your personal affairs. Unless there is more evidence, it seems, given the circumstances, that the Committee were simply doing what they were supposed to, and completing the case they had been asked to look into. If you feel I have got any of this wrong, then please let me know and I'll look again.

   My impression, looking at that case, is that you felt victimised and stressed, and did not accept the complaints against you. And you may still feel that way. None of us are perfect, and we all at times do things inappropriately, unaware that what we are doing is not acceptable to the community. And sometimes it can take time to accept that we were in the wrong. We rationalise it to ourselves, and convince ourselves that we were right. It has happened to me, so I understand the feeling. It can sometimes take time, and a lot of soul searching, to come round to accepting we were wrong. I have not examined the case closely, but there is a weight of evidence to support the findings which it may be worth you digesting rather than fighting. Believe me, you will feel better in yourself when you come to accept that some things you do the community don't like. You did them not because you're a bad person, but because you were not aware that the community didn't like them. Now those things have been pointed out to you, it's time to start examining them closely, and resolving to do things differently in future. SilkTork (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

   You seem to have missed my messages about my wife having melanomas, two of which were massive and life threatening, and the fact that one person on my talk page apparently even wished her to die. (I did not even mention my own radiation treatments.) A thousand words defending your own actions do not impress anyone much at all. By the way, feel free to decry my specific edits if you wish, but anyone impugning my wife's medical history is quite outside normal behaviour. For fun, I think you should look at some of the copyright violations pages. Collect (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, you're right I did miss those. I'm sorry I missed them, and I'm sorry that you went through that stress. I don't wish you any ill, Collect; I was answering your question, which I became aware had evolved from a personal experience. When looking into the history behind the question it was clear that answering "No. Yes. Yes." was both inadequate and inappropriate as you were still carrying some hurt and resentment from that experience, and I wanted to see if the Committee had gone wrong somewhere, and if so, what improvements could be made moving forward. Looking into the case, I would say that in regard to the questions you asked, I found no specific wrong-doing by the Committee, though - as I said - the aspect regarding introducing significant evidence at the last minute and allowing the parties to respond is something that I think is worth looking into. I think we are now wandering away from asking relevant question of an ArbCom candidate, and into very personal territory. If you wish to continue this discussion, then let's do it elsewhere. You can reach me on my talkpage or by email. SilkTork (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Softlavender

2. What was the most rewarding aspect of your previous time spent on ArbCom? Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

   Kind of the same as when doing a GA review - the satisfaction that you're helping out on the project. It's a slightly different feeling from writing a GA, which is enjoyable in itself. Yes, when writing the GA you're helping the project, but you're also enjoying yourself. Writing a GA can be stressful if someone gets involved who doesn't quite follow the guidelines or isn't that good at researching and/or writing, and you have to deal with that, but mostly it's enjoyable doing the research and sorting out the article, so often you're actually doing it for yourself, or working collaboratively with someone who understands our process, and is a good writer, so there's a collaborative buzz. Doing a GA review however, is something you're doing to help someone else, and to help the project, and it can be a lot of work without the pleasure or reward of writing the article yourself. But at the end you feel satisfied and proud, particularly when people thank you. SilkTork (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Banedon

2. I see you've said an Arbcom case doesn't have to result in sanctions above. Given that, what is your opinion of this?

   Thanks for the question Banedon. As ArbCom deals in conduct disputes, some wrong-doing has always been implied, so your amendment [15] to bring that out more clearly was appropriate. However, that there is evidence up front that a user's conduct has been cause for concern doesn't mean that the user has to be sanctioned. The Committee will look for evidence of disruptive behaviour before accepting a case, then will look into the reasons for that disruptive behaviour during the case. Evidence of unresolved disruptive behaviour is grounds for a case, but only on looking deeper into the facts will a solution be decided. The Committee cannot decide on a solution until the case has been heard. If the solution was that obvious, the community could deal with it, and there wouldn't be a need for the Committee. SilkTork (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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) 09:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

1. I agree with 5P5 that intention matters more than wording. Wording is there to try to capture the essence of intention, and sometimes we have to fine tune the wording in order to get it right, or simply to avoid wiki-lawyering.

   ArbCom policy requires that the Committee makes public (where it can) the rationale for decisions. Now sometimes what you see in the Workshop and the PD is pretty much everything that has been said, other than internal discussions on who is going to draft the case, and queries to the drafters as to how it is going; but, as ArbCom works mostly off camera, it is unknown what has or hasn't been said on the mailing list, and this can create suspicion and distrust. Fairness implies openness. The food in a restaurant with an open kitchen may not be tastier than that cooked in restaurant with a closed kitchen, but at least we know it hasn't been dropped on the floor. While some cases do have aspects that require privacy, many could be handled on Wiki, like a Crat Chat. I think most of us are mainly looking for ArbCom to produce a workable solution that is acceptable (not perfect, but acceptable). We are more likely to accept a solution when the rationales are seen being worked on, rather than simply delivered.

   I have said above that I previously queried the Committee's use of the mailing list for everyday matters, but more experienced Committee members felt that it would be awkward and inhibiting to conduct many discussions on Wikipedia. If elected I wouldn't set out to initiate any changes, but would support any proposals to do so. SilkTork (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

3. 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)

   I don't think I nor the community have greater or lesser civility expectations or standards in an ArbCom arena than elsewhere on Wikipedia, nor should we. Yes, it might be a heated arena, but so are the talk pages of articles where editors are in disagreement - I can't see why we should change our conduct policies and guidelines just for the ArbCom arena. in general, I don't have a strong platform on civility. I try to be respectful of others, but I get hurt and annoyed at times just like anyone else, so I understand the frustration that sometimes results in a sharp, inappropriate outburst. Each instance of incivility needs to be assessed in context. I'm not sure we can draw up a civility thermometer, point to a certain heat, and say if you get this hot you'll be blocked, but I think we can recognise when an individual is persistently and aggressively disrespectful for an extended period such that they are disruptive to the project. What we do with such individuals will, however, again come down to context and how much the user is a net positive to the project. We have historically (and understandably but also controversially) been prepared to work harder to keep productive users who are disrespectful than those who add little yet are disrespectful, same as we are more forgiving of a user with few contribution who was disrespectful because they were inappropriately provoked than we are of a user with many contributions who has unjustly attacked another user. So it's not just the net positive contributions, it's also the circumstance. To answer your specific questions: If a Committee member sees questionable language or statement in a case they tend to raise it with the rest of the Committee, and if appropriate the matter will be passed to the Clerks to deal with. Committee members don't directly enforce the case pages. This would be true regardless of who posted the comment, so it would be the same if the comment has been made by a Committee member. SilkTork (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am not seeing a response to the second part re misrepresentations. To clarify, I see a gross misrepresentation as tantamount to lying with an intent to malign. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Sorry for lack of clarity Cinderella157, I intended that to be included in the sentence "If a Committee member sees questionable language or statement in a case they tend to raise it with the rest of the Committee, and if appropriate the matter will be passed to the Clerks to deal with." So if there is something that I see that I feel is inappropriate - such as misrepresenting facts in such a way that it could be perceived as a personal attack, I would raise it with the rest of the Committee, and if they agreed it was a personal attack, then the Clerks would be informed, and the remarks removed, and the user responsible warned or sanctioned as appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

3. 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)

   Great question. Variations of that POV behaviour are very common and are potentially more damaging to the encyclopedia than paid editing. Essentially, editors who have a particular interest in a topic may have a conflict of interest which leads them into doggedly steering articles on that topic into a view which they support. This could be a pop star they like, their own country, religion, ethnicity. They may not be aware they are doing it. They may indeed feel they are doing the Right Thing. While we are aware of the potential dangers of POV editing by paid editors, and there are users who are alert to paid editing behaviour, we tend to let other sorts of quiet POV editing slip by unless conflict arises. I don't think this is specifically an ArbCom issue - this is a community issue. Solutions? Well, what you have done is part of the solution. Talk about it. Raise awareness. Draft guidelines for spotting such editing, and assisting such editors into complying more closely with our editing guidelines. Take away some of the animosity toward editors who may genuinely feel they are doing the right thing in removing negative comments on articles related to their topic of interest. It is quite likely that the majority of edits to Wikipedia are made by users with an emotional COI who are not fully aware of it. I think that the majority of conflicts on Wikipedia are between opposing groups of quiet COI editors who are not aware of it. All of them strongly believing they are doing the Right Thing. What we need initially is more awareness and more education. And that includes self-reflection. I think it is a subtle and tricky area. And I'm glad you brought it up. SilkTork (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Shrike

2. There are currently ongoing ARCA could you state your opinion about the issue [[16]].

   I don't like reverts of good faith edits. Reverts should be for vandalism or clear mistakes. If there is an edit a user disagrees with, they can either modify it, or they can discuss it. Setting up any kind of 1R rule, no matter how simple, can lead to frustration, misunderstanding, and potentially a slow edit war (perhaps conducted over years). There have been problems with the 1RR on this case, and it has been amended several times. I would support a 0RR. Sort out disagreements by discussion, and if that's not getting anywhere, go to dispute resolution. If that sounds long winded, just consider that the 1RR was imposed 10 years ago, and it's still causing problems. SilkTork (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Liz

2. Hello, SilkTork. 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!} 01:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   Hi Liz. Subtle and thoughtful questions. I suppose the assumption that I had before joining is the one suggested in your second question, that the Committee collaborates rather more than it does. By the nature of ArbCom, each Committee will have different dynamics, so the way one particular Committee gels and works together may not be the way another one does, and some Committees may be quite harmonious and well organised, while others may be less so. My experience was of a bunch of individuals who contributed in different ways, at different times, and for differing lengths of time. Occasionally several would make a decision and something would be done, but rarely was it the whole Committee deciding something, and often it would be different members of the Committee so there wasn't a cabal - though the more active members would be more involved than the less active, so there were perhaps a few who were more involved in decision making than others, but there was certainly no group-think among those that were most active.

   I'm not setting out to make any changes. I am aware that already the Committee has changed a lot since I was on it. I am very glad that child protection is now handled by the Foundation. If elected, my intention is to work harmoniously with the others on the Committee rather than look to stir up change. I feel the Committee has been moving in the right direction for years. I think most of us want to see the community handle more and more disputes until we no longer need ArbCom. And the privacy aspects of the Committee's work, including CU and OS, should be handled professionally by the Foundation as there are legal aspects to that. So I'd like to see ArbCom completely disbanded at some point in the future. SilkTork (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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?

   I was aware. I don't often participate in discussions these days. When I was more active, I tended to prefer to close discussions than comment on them, unless I felt I had something different to say than had already been said. The "fuck off" discussion wasn't a topic that interested me, so I didn't read it. Since I have been on Wikipedia there has been tension around use of language, particularly over the use of the words fuck and cunt, so I wasn't seeing anything new. Use of strong language is often conflated with incivility such that it can be difficult to separate the two at times. There used to be a lot of fuss over the essay Wikipedia:Don't be a dick because it used the word dick, so referring someone to it was seen as potentially offensive. I wrote Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate, which is the same essay, but worded slightly differently, so the same thing could be said more quietly. But it didn't rally catch on. Some people don't mind plain speaking, others do. Some people don't respond well to polite speech, feeling it perhaps lacks weight. It's all cats and dogs. Cain and Abel. We are not all the same, but we do tend to have points of interest. When we find our points of interest, we stop fighting: Christmas truce. SilkTork (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   Without looking at the RfC and the events leading up to it, I'll just respond to the question as you have posted above: It depends on the circumstances. It's certainly worth looking into. If someone wanted to open an ArbCom case because someone was repeatedly telling several editors to fuck off, and those editors were unhappy about it, and the community couldn't agree on a solution, then I would likely support opening a case. But I wouldn't have any prejudice regarding the case. I am neither for nor against strong language per se; however, incivility or hostility aside, using the wrong register for the circumstances can cause problems. It's not actually an offence to use an inappropriate register (unless it is being done deliberately to provoke a reaction), but it will likely cause a problem. SilkTork (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   Depends on the circumstances. If someone is frequently or stupidly angry for little or no reason [17] then that's not OK. But all of us, apart from the angels and the saints (and even they succumb now and again), have got angry occasionally. The good thing about the internet is that it takes a little longer to respond than in real life, so here, at least, we have more of an opportunity to catch ourselves and pause before pressing the send button. Because people can be hurt when others are angry at them, we need to be clear that nobody has a Right To Be Angry card that they can wave at the umpire, and that the course we recommend is to Step Away From The Keyboard. But we also need to be tolerant and understanding of human nature. SilkTork (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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?

   As above I suppose. Depends on the circumstances. A person may have righteous indignation or they may be attempting to intimidate the other user. SilkTork (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

    It's against policy of course. But if you mean something more than that, please let me know. SilkTork (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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?

    It in one of our conduct policies, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, that we don't do that. The example given is: "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" SilkTork (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Hijiri88

2. This is in reference to a content dispute in which you involved yourself a few years back, which 2015 ArbCom later weighed in on quite heavily, so I kinda feel it's worth asking. On 23 March 2015 you wrote that you felt the Kenji Miyazawa article's lead should mention the Kokuchūkai, a Buddhist group with which he was briefly associated, based on how prominent it was in the article body at that time. (The above diff doesn't actually go into as much detail, but giving all the diffs would be awkward: the further comments are here.) Do you still feel that to be the case based on the current state of the article? I am the principal author of the article as it exists now, and would like to nominate it for GA, and maybe eventually FA, but am unwilling to do so while it still has what I see as an extremely serious flaw, and am just as reluctant to fix that flaw myself given (a) the opinions expressed by you and others in that RFC, and (b) what happened in the resulting ArbCom case (permalink of ArbCom unanimously agreeing that the dispute started there). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   I will answer this on your talkpage, as it doesn't appear to be related to the ArbCom elections. SilkTork (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Question 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) 22:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   I'm aware of one of those. At least one case when I was on the Committee involved material published in one of those, so I had a look at it. But I've not looked since. I have no interest in or opinion on those sites. Wikipedia is pretty fucking big, so people will talk about it all over the place. Jimbo is sensitive to media discussions about Wikipedia. And he's right to be, because the better the reputation Wikipedia has, the more that people will want to come here and do good work, and the more money that people will be willing to donate. Criticism in the major media outlets (not the sites you mention, but the BBC and the New York Times) will filter into Wikipedia. I couldn't comment on the impact those sites would have. SilkTork (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

2. 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) 22:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   I don't know many of the hard details behind your question - specific bans and the reasons for them, etc. However, I support the principle that the legal owner of the site should step in where there are legal considerations. I support the idea that the risk of legal consequences should be taken away from site volunteers where appropriate. ArbCom banning someone who then decides to take court action against the individuals on the Committee is a very real possibility. Am I concerned that the Foundation may decide to ban someone not for legal reasons, but because they are an outspoken critic? No. I don't think this would happen. The concerns I have regarding the Foundation tend to be over the way they control the software, and feel they can impose changes on the community through the software and their own initiatives without sufficient or at times any consultation with the community. My feeling on the software is that the Foundation should only implement software changes at the community's request, and should respond more promptly to such requests. SilkTork (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from 28bytes

2. 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?

   Such links are generally suppressed. Occasions when such links might be allowed would be if the user had posted the links themselves, though if the user were displaying odd behaviour, it might be safer to suppress then ask the user what was going on, just in case they were having a crisis, or their account had been compromised. SilkTork (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Feminist

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

   Hi Feminist. Wow, what a huge question! I kinda like it, but it's so huge that I could spend the next couple of days thinking about where to start and what to say. Rather than give you a vague answer, or something not quite on the ball, would you narrow it down a bit for me? Which processes and which outsiders are you thinking of? Are you thinking of something like the recent Donna Strickland situation, where Wikipedia was criticised by the media because our processes let us down? SilkTork (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Strickland would be a great example. More broadly (and feel free not to answer this part), I would like your views on how Wikipedia editors can better communicate its WP:Processes to people not involved with Wikipedia, including article subjects, the press, and readers in general. feminist (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Cool. This is a smudgy area. How much of the explanation (and related PR) should be done by the community actively involved in doing the work (and so understand it), and how much should be done by the paid professionals at WMF (who have to deal with the legal consequences of an article subject being offended)? I don't have an answer. There is a sort of dilemma, an internal friction or dichotomy in our mechanism in that we want transparency at every level as this helps our community flourish, and assists academic research, but imposing the transparency of the mechanics of how an article is constructed can inhibit the reader. Most of our article tags are editorial - they are not there so much for the reader, they are there for us, to let us know what work needs doing. Yes, these tags may provide additional information about the article and its reliability to the reader, but they are not helping the reader do what they have come to Wikipedia to do - to quickly get some facts or details. Telling the reader a better version is available elsewhere in a language they can't read and we need help in translating it, or that there is a dispute about the POV or that some of the sources may not be reliable, or that the article has needed extra sources since 2012, is not giving them information about the subject. So, while we can and should better communicate our processes, I think first we need to decide who needs to know, what do they need to know, and where should they be able to access that information. And then divide up the task appropriately between community and WMF. To be fair, we already do this. And like all things on this astonishing project of ours, we get better at it every year. We are moving in the right direction. We may not have all the answers yet, but we are getting there. And while there are people like yourself ready to keep raising the issue, then we will get there sooner. SilkTork (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaboration. feminist (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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?

   This is probably one of the most apt Arb candidate questions I've seen so far. Unfortunately (or fortunately) (as you know, being a former Arb) there isn't a simple Jasper Beardly answer. However, someone who has already been through several sanctions is more likely than most to see the ban option on the PD page. The Wikipedia community (and ArbCom is part of the community) is refreshingly tolerant and willing to give second and third chances to users who are productive - I think that is perhaps because we are not here for ourselves we are here for the project, so we put the work of the project above our own sense of comfort and enjoyment. Anyway, short and vague answer: Someone who is repeatedly damaging or inhibiting the project out of proportion to the value they bring to the project and has repeatedly failed to respond to sanctions and advice is the most likely person to be banned. SilkTork (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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?

   Cool question. I don't have an answer for you tonight. And I may not have an answer for you next week, next month or next year. But this is something that all of us should keep thinking about. We could try a nuclear Zero Tolerance policy, or a fuzzy Everyone Just Chill Man, or remove all talkpages and edit comment boxes so we just edit in silence, or fudge along and bit by bit, day by day, slowly but surely get better at spotting potential flash points so we have ready a set of guidelines and processes for calming matters down. I'm probably a bit of an optimist, but I like the community we've built here, and the rules and guidelines we have developed. I see us getting better all the time. I see us handling disputes more effectively. I see the role of the Committee reducing year by year. While it's quite common for people to say "Wikipedia was better before", I think Wikipedia is better now. Right now. And it will be even better tomorrow. We are making some great articles - more securely sourced than ever before, and people are working together to welcome new users, and to repel vandals and to spot sockpuppets. I think we need to give ourselves a pat on the back for what we have achieved so far, and to look forward with anticipation to what better achievements we will make in the future by fudging along bit by bit, slowly but surely.... SilkTork (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   Gosh, I remember Courcelles coming up with that concept during discussions during the TimidGuy case, and then posting it on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Proposed decision. He explained it on the mailing list, though I'm not sure he explained it on Wikipedia; anyway, I think everyone got the idea that in Super Mario the character can get power ups which means that if he makes a mistake that would normally kill him in the game, he instead just loses a power up. So, if someone is an admin, and they make a mistake, should they just get desysopped, or should they instead get a ban. My feeling is that everyone is accountable, no matter what powers they have, and should face the same sanctions. An admin faces a particular sanction of losing the admin tools if they misuse them or they behave in a manner unbecoming of an admin. So, if someone meets the paddlin requirement (whatever it is), they should face the paddlin. If someone abuses the tools, they should have them removed, and the two sanctions shouldn't get mixed up. SilkTork (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   Yes. I'm trying to think of why a warning wouldn't be useful, but I'm not quite getting it at the moment - perhaps because I'm tired. If I've missed the point of your question, please let me know. Did you raise it to underline that they are useful because you're aware of criticism of them, or do you feel yourself that they are not useful? I'm quite happy to hear your side of things. SilkTork (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Insider Baseball

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

   It could be used more by the Committee. This is a good place for open discussion on possible remedies. A space for community and Committee to work together on solutions. SilkTork (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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.

   Most of those who have put themselves forward, like myself, have experience of being on the Committee, and so we are aware of what is required. Ideally, every Committee member would devote time and energy to looking into not just the evidence that has been presented by the drafting Arb (as well as that provided on the Evidence page) but also into doing their own research, on every case, but this doesn't happen. That's the reality. I think I have shown in my previous time on the Committee, in my general history on Wikipedia, especially when closing discussions and AFD or doing GA reviews, and in answering the questions on this page, that I do research and think about the issues, and where unsure I will ask rather than guess or assume. Does that mean I will always make the right decision? No. Does that mean I won't make mistakes? No. Does that mean I will always understand what I am seeing? No. But I will probe a bit, I will think, I will ask questions, and I will share all that with the Committee and the community. I will rather probe and make a mistake, than assume and make a mistake. I think that probing mistakes are far less common and less serious than assumption mistakes. SilkTork (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Are you willing to recuse yourself from an arb case involving an editor (either filer or filed against) with whom you have adamantly opposed in a prior argument or whose ideology you view unfavorably?

   I am willing to consider recusing whenever there may be a doubt about impartiality, and to discuss it with the Committee. If I know I am unlikely to be impartial then I will recuse without the need to discuss it. SilkTork (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for volunteering to participate on ArbCom and for your thoughtful response, SilkTork. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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?

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?

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.

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

8. Admin socking is a rare area ArbCom has the remit to deal with. If your 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 met with silence (or a lack of a defense) from the admin?

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?

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) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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 in counteracting their influence on Wikipedia? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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?

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?