Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from InsaneHacker

2. The arbitration policy states that arbitrators are expected to recuse themselves from proceedings if they have a conflict of interest. What do you consider conflicts of interest? Are there any situations that may be considered COI "grey areas" that you have an opinion on?

   I would consider a conflict of interest to cover a case involving an editor who fits the following:
   A. Anyone I have personally met and had a substantial conversation with - This is because I will have formed a subjective opinion of the person in doing so which will have affected my opinion.
   B. A number of people who I interact with regularly on IRC, mainly in #wikipedia-en - again, I have formed subjective opinions regarding the character and abilities of these people, which would be likely to influence my thoughts when considering the merits of the case.
   C. Around a dozen editors who I have interacted with substantially in my normal editing, such as on talk pages or AfD. This is a relatively low number which will undoubtedly grow, however I consider it reasonably easy to keep track of those I have had significant dealings with.
   D. Anyone who I have already formed a strong opinion of in the course of my editing. This is rare, and a bit of a "grey area" but I would define it as covering people who regularly make constructive edits to my favorite subjects (Cornwall, some History, some Law) and people who may have repeatedly commented on me personally provided the activity consistent, over a long time period, and was some time before the dispute.
   I will note. Any correspondence, editing or comments made by someone directly before or during a dispute would be even more of a grey area, but I would be likely to consider any actions a deliberate attempt to influence my decision and disregard them as such. I would also consider a conflict of interest to include a dispute related certain subjects, such as (non exhaustive) Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, some history related topics, most British military related topics (which I have strong personal opinions on), any article I created, and probably some areas of the law, particularly if I have strong feelings a certain party to the proceedings is wrong based on my own knowledge of the subject.
   I cannot give a complete picture here, it is of course impossible to accurately determine a conflict of interest except on a case by case basis, and there may be occasions where a conflict of interest could arise that I have not listed above or anticipated, as is the nature of such things.

4. There is currently no requirement that ArbCom members have to be administrators, but historically every arbitrator has also been an admin. Do you see any value in having non-administrators on the commitee, why/why not? (I'm especially interested in answers from non-admin nominees)

   I think that someone with more of a real life viewpoint, and less of a Wikipedia only viewpoint would be a useful fresh view on the Arbitration Committee. Over entrenchment in what is after all a volunteer role can result in toxicity and over-involvement to the detriment of ones ability to see the neutral overview and the big picture in situation. Administrators are a valuable asset to the project, but none of the tools admins use are ones I have any need for, or interest in having access to, so it is not for me to worry about it too much. I am aware that many people consider adminship to be a prerequisite for even considering ArbCom, mostly the same people that consider adminship to be a "big deal" and putting people "in charge" as opposed to an ordinary user-right giving access to some tools. These people have been very vocal on my talk page and IRC insisting that I should withdraw. Although I am unlikely to be successful in being elected given this overly negative reaction, I think I should at least stick it out and see what the votes are.
   Perhaps the requirements could be reconsidered if no non-admins are elected after 15 years, I suppose that's a matter for consideration, restricting ArbCom to admins with many years activity (more than me anyway). But equally it could be argued that a comparatively new non-admin editor could give a valuable viewpoint on new editors to the arbitration committee, as many of the complaints do seem to be related to ArbCom being "out of touch" with the general public and lacking in core values relating to editor retention, and while I think this is a bit harsh and ArbCom for the most part does an excellent job; this is a possible argument for the benefits of a 'newer' non-admin member.

6. Do you think that administrators or users in good standing who generally contribute to the project in a constructive manner should be given more leeway when it comes to sanctions against them (also referred to as the Super Mario problem)? If not, do you think this happens currently, and if so, what can be done to prevent it?

   Yes I do. But only in respects to considering the appropriate sanctions in less serious cases. This is something I would qualify with the "net positive" test, if an editor has got into a dispute over an disagreement on a topic, and has been out of line, yet has written several GA's from scratch related to that topic, and made significant contributions constructively on related topics with other editors without conflict, it would be reasonable to consider a sanction that would allow that editor to return to editing that topic after serving a suitable penalty. An editor whose only contributions to that topic has been reverted and in conflict with others, and who has engaged in a comparable dispute, could well have a sanction which would permanently restrict him from editing that area for a longer time period. However, when considering whole site bans, this reasoning does not apply, and time periods should be consistent.

Questions from Banedon

2. Were there any Arbcom decisions in the recent past that you disagreed with? That is, were there any motions that you would have voted against the majority on, proposed decisions that you would have drafted differently, case requests that you would've voted to decline which the current committee voted to accept or vice versa, etc? If so, what would you have supported / drafted instead, and why? EDIT: In view of Nick's question below, if you choose to answer his question, feel free to ignore this one since they rather overlap. EDIT #2: I'm particularly interested in decisions that split the current committee, e.g. this case request, this, this, and this proposed remedy.

   It's generally hard for me to see any clear-cut situations where I would have disagreed with the way the case was decided. Just maybe if I was actually involved in one of those cases you mention I would have taken a minority position, but I probably wouldn’t have, given what evidence was presented at the time, I would say that I broadly support to decisions that were eventually made.

2. Re your answer to Nick's question below, can you give an example of what you would've done instead in those cases?

   In all fairness no, I can clearly see the outcomes were sub-optimal with the benefit of hindsight, but I cannot really say that I would have done anything any different.

Questions from Nick

2. Pick three Arbitration cases from the last six years, explain in detail what aspects of the committee you agree with, what aspects you disagree with, and what you would attempt to do differently. Where you disagree with the outcomes previously, and where you would do things differently, indicate how you would attempt to gain consensus and support from the other committee members.

   Case 1. this. Case 2. this. Case 3. this
   In all three of these cases, I think that ArbCom failed to see beyond the issue of passing judgment, there were efforts in all three cases that could have been turned towards more useful endeavors and that opportunity was missed. A wider involvement could have been used to redirect efforts rather than just stopping it.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

2. Why did you not run for adminship first before running for Arbcom given the fact except perhaps one arb long time ago was elected as a non admin .All arbs are admin ?

   Adminship is "not a big deal" and I do not want to engage in frontline admin work, therefore I do not want the tools. I do not intend to run for adminship at all, and doing so purely to make my candidacy more likely would be a dishonest reason for getting the tools in the first place.

Questions from User:Iridescent

2. Your candidate statement includes fair and impartial justice, [I] am looking at this as I would a real courtroom, I promise to uphold fair rules and follow the spirit and letter of policy in consideration and I am offering to give my expertise as legal professional, all of which give the impression that you see Arbcom as some kind of Supreme Court of Wikipedia. Do you actually understand what it is that Arbcom does? And (while I'm not necessarily saying it won't be) why do you feel legal experience is relevant to what Arbcom does?

   I will start by restating that I am fully aware of the role of the arbitration committee. I consider all those extracts from my statement to be valid. You say "Supreme Court of Wikipedia", I understand your implication, I do not see it in that way. To take a literal view, I would point out the level of detail and complexity between ArbCom and the (any) supreme court is immense, and there is no constitutional element to ArbCom. It may seem that ArbCom is bureaucratic to the layman, however the level of detail, rules, understanding and process involved is roughly equal to a lower tribunal or magistrates court. The arbitration committee does "what it says on the tin", it arbitrates, a process which in the United Kingdom is called mediation, and is held by a qualified professional "mediator" in a courtroom (without a judge), the parties will form a compromise which is then binding. I consider that ArbCom is somewhere in between this and a full trial, as it shares elements of both in its processes. I consider that the training and experience I have in the legal field is transferable to a volunteer role in the arbitration committee because of the close similarity between a real tribunal process and an ArbCom case.

4. Given that your recent talk archives consist of little more than people complaining about your general disregard for policy (as you presumably recall, it's only been a week since I had to explain the fundamental Wiki concept of "category tree" to you because you couldn't be bothered to look it up for yourself), why do you feel we should trust you when you say you plan to "uphold and follow the letter and spirit of policy"?

   I will answer this out of turn because you question could be seen to make implications I am incompetent. Firstly I refute "general disregard for policy" being brought up on my talk page, anyone may check the archives, which ought to reveal that any disagreements were primarily based on the interpretation of the notability guideline, and that my views regarding the interaction of WP:N and WP:V are shared by a substantial number of other editors whose discussions can be seen, for example, at the village pump. I may have slightly harsh views on corporate promotion and WP:NOT, again this is my interpretation of the policy, not "disregard". I will also point out that your assumption everyone knows WikiProject banners form a "category tree" is in my opinion unreasonable, given that there is no guidance on the subject, the article alerts system does not treat it as such, and a considerable number of banners are misplaced (enough for me to assume the incorrect placement was correct or at least had consensus). Now to get onto my statement. As you are no doubt aware, Wikipedia has few actual policies, which are well defined and not, in most cases, ambiguous. There is a considerable amount of filler, guidelines, essays and consensus (over 2400 pages of it). I am well versed in the content of the key policies, endlessly assume good faith and don't use WP:IAR as a wildcard. I know what is and what isn't important when it comes to the guidelines and the consensus on the interpretation of policy, and I can use this to consider an issue. I would consider that consensus is the "spirit" of the policy, as it is the underlying foundation of Wikipedia itself, even an arbitration decision is made by consensus and with the support of consensus, it is not an isolated incident, everything is connected and made with the consensus of editors.

Questions from Usernamekiran

2. Given your editing history, it is observable that there were numerous incidents where an editor had to tell you something more than once for you to understand and/or comply. Iridescent Has mentioned one incident above. We can understand you were not familiar with the complications that your bot would have made in wikiproject sorting. But your recent conversation at User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Archive 5#IRC is a little conerning as you completely misinterpreted a very simple request, and another editor had to explain it to you again. Why do you think, in presence of such incidences, you will get positive votes? I mean, why do you feel the community should trust your judgement, and interpretation of comments/actions of involved parties in the ArbCom cases?

   I can understand your concern. I will point out the discussion you linked it only a small fragment of the incidents involved there and that I had been talking with Danegeld on simple-wiki, where I am a interested contributor, and on IRC, the technical issue with the massmessage system has since been resolved, although my original idea on how to fix it was considered 'entirely wrong' by a more knowledgeable tech staff. I assume positive intention as part of WP:AGF, it is my interpretation of the core WP:5P principles, if you tell me something with several possible meanings I will take the positive one, equally if you make a statement with implications of something positive as an outcome, I will work on that. If I appear to not understand something it is normally because no context has been given and I am waiting for further clarification, or more often than not, it directly contradicts statements made by other well meaning editors (as was the case with the bot). I think that my willingness to show good faith and look for the positive in everything is an innately good quality, I see no reason why it would put people off, indeed the archives seem to be full of people asking for exactly that. I feel that my methods are the right approach, and that people will appreciate that.

4. After getting answer for my previous question, I have another: If possible, what different meanings can be interpreted from: I'd like to politely ask you to refrain from helping people in that channel - as far as I can tell all of the advice you gave to people in the past 24 hours was entirely wrong. If you have questions or want to learn more I'm happy to answer them or give you some pointers. HTH.? (diff to the comment.)

   My take was more or less: Hi, could you please not talk to people in #Wikipedia-tech unless you are a technical expert, which I don't think you are, because your proposed fix for the massmessage errors was incorrect, but I am happy to help you and Danegeld by fixing the problem with the massmessage system. - again, context is everything.

Questions from Fram

2. You claim a good knowledge of policies (which is needed to be an arbitrator), and a basic position of AGF. I have criticized your AfD nominations in the past, looking at your prod and CSD nominations I see many of the same issues. Tagging a one-line user page where a new editor presents himself neutrally as "U5" speedy: notwebhost is wrong on many levels, and violates WP:BITE quite seriously. Not surprisingly after such a welcome, the editor hasn't made any other edits. Your prod log is filled mainly with bluelinks, which isn't a surprise when you do things like this, tagging a page because it fails "specifically the general notability guideline and verifiability policy." This is a band which has existed for more than 35 years, has articles in 8 other wikis, are signed to a major label (Warner). This picture was in the article, for crying out loud. A simple search gives you something like this article, which makes it abundantly clear how utterly and totally misguided this prod was, and that you had performed no checks at all before claiming that this band article failed notability and verifiability (which would have made the article a hoax basically). So, my question is: how do you plan to convince us that you truly have a good knowledge of policies and guidelines? Or failing that, why do you believe that appointing a problematic, often clueless editor to ArbCom would be a good idea?

   I am of course aware of your past disagreements with me and you are entitled to disagree with my interpretation of the notability guideline. My views on the posting of personal information on Wikipedia are well known, a userpage reading Amanj mahdi Was born on 14 feb 1995 on sulaimany iraq Navë kurdish where the editor has made no other contributions before or after is what I would call "a problem", I will note that is enough information to steal someones identity, but given the area, its just a noticeboard posting, people from non-English speaking counties do this consistently, I checked beforehand of course, and this is a common issue, people just post their name and details, or a mini CV, make no other edits and it remains there, often for years, (example: User:Farman.saudin). I also don't mind too much if my prods are removed. Additionally anyone can play "spot the bad prod" even someone with a solid prod log such as yourself has clear errors such as Michael Keating (priest), Tanisha Crasto, Amory Nelson Hardy and WP:Crystal on 2017 World Table Tennis Championships. If you feel that my prod log is an issue, that is fine, you can vote for another candidate. However I consider that the role of ArbCom is considerably different from new page patrol, spending a significant amount of time considering the merits of two opposing statements is very different from spending fifteen minutes trying to properly source half a dozen articles on a band from Vietnam.

4. Followup. if you don't know or can't apply our policies, then how would you be able to "consider the merits of two opposing statements"? Something like Tanisha Crasto is a borderline case, eventually kept based on a guideline which probably needs changing: Carabao (band) is not a borderline case at all though, and prodding this is close to vandalism (and they are from Thailand, not Vietnam). To claim that "you are entitled to disagree with my interpretation of the notability guideline" ignores that what you did was not an interpretation of the notability guideline, but a complete and utter disregard of it: if that band isn't notable, then we'll end up with 10,000 articles instead of 5 million. To decide whether someone has violated our policies (and has done so in flagrant or consistent ways and so on), you first have to know and understand our policies. If you are not able to find abundant claims of notability in an article like Carabao, or are unable to verify them (which really wasn't hard), then you have no business in any position of trust on enwiki, as you either don't understand the very basics, or don't care about them. You don't seem to learn from your mistakes (see User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Archive 4#AFD, where I warned you to "voluntarliy stop nominating articles for deletion for at least 6 months", and compare that with the very first ProD you made afterwards, which was Carabao). So, my question is: how do you plan to convince us that you truly have a good knowledge of policies and guidelines? Or failing that, why do you believe that appointing a problematic, often clueless editor to ArbCom would be a good idea?

   I seriously doubt that we have more than three or four hundred thousand non-notable articles, maybe a million if we went really really deletionist. Most of our articles are perfectly fine. You are exaggerating somewhat. I could not find any claims to notability in Carabao, two references is not abundant claims of notability and one or a few other articles on Google didn't cut it either. I will add that you are almost certainly one of those editors who thinks notability is a policy in itself and that you apply the normal test of "does it seem well known?". I will clarify that I am one of those editors who thinks it is simply a way of defining the minimum level of sourcing to meet WP:V, and I apply the test of "are there sources?". This is a fundamental difference of opinion, which you do not seem to understand despite my repeated explanations. The issue of inherent notability for various topics is always in contention, but basic verification is still required. And finally, I will refute the accusation of problematic, often clueless editor especially coming from you, given your prior comments to me, and your other activities on Wikipedia. I am even getting to the point of accusing you of not understanding the difference between policy and guidelines, and not even practicing the core principles themselves. I am perfectly able to go on, but I don't have unlimited time, there are other questions here and I have covered the main point.

6. In a reply to DGG below, you state "even the most innocent supposed fact may fall into the realm of pseudoscience." This seems to be a reference to a discussion we had about another related source at User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver#Dolmen and star alignment fringe claims and at User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Arbcom candidacy#Fram's PRODs. This related to the source hedgedruid.com which you used in Lesquite Quoit, and which I removed with the edit summary "an unreliable pseudoscience source". Your first reply was "perhaps you have something against druids? ", your next reply adressed the edit summary again with " seems like you think druids are "unreliable pseudoscience", or did you mean something else?" Your final reply was "Regarding the Druids, although they produce volumes of the weirdest stuff, they are somewhat pre-science era, therefore you can't call them pseudoscience [...] when it comes to accurate calculation of the ancient alignment of stars, leylines, and other things they believe in, they are normally very reliable. I will obviously point out that the dolmen itself was a pagan burial site, so modern practitioners of the same faith are therefore a natural source (not that I mind you removing it) which is why I used it in the first place." All this seems to indicate that you still believe this to be a reliable, acceptable source and that describing that source as "unreliable pseudoscience" was somehow offensive against druids in general. Is that a fair assessment of your position? Fram (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Well actually I said: Regarding the Druids, although they produce volumes of the weirdest stuff, they are somewhat pre-science era, therefore you can't call them pseudoscience (if you like you could call them a fringe religion, although they would naturally find that offensive). It's also worth noting that when it comes to accurate calculation of the ancient alignment of stars, leylines, and other things they believe in, they are normally very reliable. I will obviously point out that the dolmen itself was a pagan burial site, so modern practitioners of the same faith are therefore a natural source (not that I mind you removing it) which is why I used it in the first place. And you haven’t clarified whether it was the (dubious) website or the druids that wrote it which you described as unreliable pseudoscience.
   
   Yes, I see no issue with quoting druids on matters related to druids, and any derogatory comments about druids ought, in my opinion, to refer to them as a fringe religion rather than pseudoscience. As I am not aware of any mainstream druids representing their beliefs as anything other than an alternative belief system. Certainly not as a replacement to modern science. Furthermore, well over 90% of my local community firmly believe that these ancient stone structures are aligned according to celestial bodies, so maybe I am slightly biased accordingly to my local viewpoint, as I am equally biased on national lines related to the Cornish. My point to DGG, is that it is very easy to get into a dispute of this type, even the mot basic point (like in this case, whether a dolmen points at X is an encyclopaedic fact?) it is only a very troublesome subject or a group of very troublesome editors that would ever escalate such a matter to the level of requiring an ArbCom case.

8. A person can never be pseudoscience, and when someone writes "an unreliable pseudoscience source", you shouldn't even need to ask "whether it was the (dubious) website or the druids that wrote it which you described as unreliable pseudoscience.". "it is only a very troublesome subject or a group of very troublesome editors that would ever escalate such a matter to the level of requiring an ArbCom case." No, as these kind of things often are part of the reason for an ArbCom case. ArbCom cases are usually about wellmeaning, hardworking editors who have one or more incorrigible problems which are serious, but where part of the community disagrees that they are serious enough to take further actions (another issue are admin actions which may warrant desysoping, which the community can't do). E.g. in your case, edits like this one, and your defense of it, could be used as arguments why you need restrictions imposed (certainly if there would be a pattern of such edits). What we need are ArbCom members with a thorough understanding of our basic policies, including the ability to make the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable sources. There is, as usual, a relatively wide grey area of debatable sources. However, the source you used would be deemed unacceptable by anyone competent enough to have a seat in ArbCom (or competent enough to be a new page reviewer and so on). You used the source in Lesquite Quoit[1]. It is a webpage which has claims like "So, I began to dowse to find out whether this site was astrally-aligned, and if so, which part of it was aligned. I got a positive response form the dowsing rods to the alignment, and when I asked to be shown the part which was aligned I was taken to the capstone, and the rods tried to point up the axis along which the capstone lay." "Lesquite Quoit is aligned with the constellation of Libra currently. Yet, originally this could not have been the case, because the capstone had clearly fallen since its original construction, so… had it re-aligned itself? Indeed it had! Dowsing confirmed it for me. The site’s alignment, the set of stars from which it drew some energy, was now a different set to the original alignment." "What about WHEN the alignment occurred? It would be highly improbable tha I had chosen the exact day and time when the alignment was occurring, so I dowsed for a date and time. I got the 14th of July at 6:11am." (and really, everyone should read that page just to get the full picture of how utterly wacky it is). Anyone who defends the use of this source in enwiki is either trolling or completely disqualified from any position of trust. Anyone who sees the removal of this site with the claim "unreliable pseudoscience source" as an attack on druids is not fit to judge any content or conduct disputes. Believing that this kind of thing is irrelevant to ArbCom work is displaying ignorance of what ArbCom often has to do. Having you on a case like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience would be problematic to say the least.

   I disagree, and you still haven’t addressed my query (can you answer on the other discussion page please), would the druids be reliable if they published that same article in some Druids magazine or a book, or is the opinion of the druids always "unreliable pseudoscience". And how is that source unreliable? It is published, attributed to a known author, verified (presumably) by the co-author who are both druids. You could argue that Druidry itself is unreliable perhaps, you could poke holes in my use of the source by pointing out it is hard to verify if these druids are really druids, you could claim that druids are unreliable due to being "utterly wacky", etc etc. I will draw your attention to WP:RS, specifically WP:BIASED which says Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. So really now my point should be clear, quoting druids on a matter of concern to druids, regardless of whether you actually know how to use dowsing rods (trust me, its just like using a protractor on a star chart, you point a metal rod at something in the sky, and make note of the angle to the object) which was the method used by this druid to determine that a 10 ton stone points at the constellation of Libra on 14th of July at 6:11am (every year). I am not "trolling" this is obvious stuff, although you clearly have no concept of druids.

10. That text would be unreliable pseudoscience no matter where it was published. Any source that published this would disqualify itself as a reliable source straightaway. "And how is that source unreliable? It is published, attributed to a known author, verified (presumably) by the co-author who are both druids." Thanks, I'll start the procedure to get your NPR rights revoked (and perhaps to get some topic bans or a mentor for you) tomorrow at WP:AN. You are unfit to judge sources and articles on enwiki (we can now add a total lack of understanding of what WP:RS and WP:NPOV mean to the long list of policies and guidelines you interpret rather creatively). And you are obviously completely unsuited for ArbCom.

    So in short, you do have an issue with druids. No matter, I am not in the habit of editing articles where science of any types is relevant, although I had hoped to do some more neolithic monuments, and being topic banned is disappointing. As is your decision to remove me from the NPR list, especially given my otherwise good work there and the increasing backlog which is the only reason I volunteered there to begin with. And even more as you are doing all of this over two incidents which you don't like, presumably to avoid my viewpoints entering ArbCom, which I understand, I am just disappointed.

Aside from User:Boing! said Zebedee

2. I note you brushed off Fram's question about your PROD nomination of Carabao (band) without really addressing it at all. Normally I wouldn't push you on it myself, but it was such a monumentally bad judgment (with the evidence of WP:NBAND notability being overwhelming and already contained in the article) that I think you owe us more than that. So can you explain what went wrong and allay my fears that you don't understand Wikipedia's notability requirements? And explain how you would approach challenges to your personal actions if you are elected to ArbCom - would you similarly brush them off without any real answer?

   I could have expanded on my answer but I have already discussed this "monumentally bad judgment" elsewhere and my thoughts on the subject should be clear (obviously not). That is that Carabao is probably notable (I subsequently checked with an editor who is aware of them) but that the articles on every album by Carabao were probably not (although nothing has been done about that), the mistake was caused mainly by a lack of sources, this massive and very detailed article (and its many entirely unsourced subpages) have much praise and very limited verifiable facts, there were several deadlinks that were supposed to be supporting statements like Carabao is the most popular Thai rock group of all time. Carabao reached cult status long ago and is now one of the most successful legendary rock groups in the world. They have been compared to the rock band U2 but I was unable to verify it, and the page was unreviewed at NPP despite having been made in 2005. Although as you say, it makes claims of importance, I could not verify these either. You would probably not be surprised by the number of articles like this with similar or better reference that turn out to be hoaxes or way overblown. In short, I was unconvinced of the article being accurate and prodded it as a WP:V/WP:N problem. The prod was duly removed, and the article tagged as refimprove, I daresay someone will add sources at some point.
   
   To answer the second part of your question. If I am elected to ArbCom, this will form the majority of my volunteering towards this project, I will continue to edit topics of personal interest (geography of south-west England) and participate in relevant project-wide RfC's. However to avoid conflict of interest or undue influence, I will stop participating in areas such as AfD, AfC, NPP and general articles, and instead focus on the smooth running of the arbitration committee. I will of course remain fully accountable for my actions throughout this time.
   However, I reserve the right to only answer the actual question. Fram has an unusual way of questioning, consisting of a long statement of opinion followed by a short question vaguely related to the statement just made, the actual question above (in both Fram's questions, it is duplicated) is So, my question is: how do you plan to convince us that you truly have a good knowledge of policies and guidelines? Or failing that, why do you believe that appointing a problematic, often clueless editor to ArbCom would be a good idea? : I still have not answered this question, only refuted most of Fram's preliminary statements of opinion. To be quite honest and answer it, I plan to show my knowledge of policies and guidelines by answering the questions here. Nick's request for an essay is the one question that is most relevant to this concern, read my answer to that when it is done.

Question from My name is not dave

2. Do you believe that having non-administrators as part of the Committee reduces the productivity of the Committee?

   I do not. I have discussed the issue at length with other editors. The normal operation of ArbCom does not require use of the "tools". Decisions made by ArbCom are made as a group, through communication. If a case relies on checkuser evidence or is based on information available only from Special:Undelete, then a member of the ArbCom group with access to the tools would need to make a basic representation to the content of the hidden material. This is already the situation, as not all ArbCom members are oversighters and checkusers, both tools which must be used in certain cases. In my view for the smooth running of the Arbitration Committee, we would need to have a minimum of two people with the full set of CU, OS, Admin tools, so that the hidden, suppressed or restricted details can be verified. In my view a non-admin is no more of a drain on the resources of the Arbitration Committee than a non-checkuser is.

Aside from User:Iridescent

2. Where are you getting not all ArbCom members are oversighters and checkusers from? All arbs are OS (I don't see how it would even be possible to be functional on Arbcom without it), and it would have taken you about two seconds to check that since all you need to do is run the cursor down the list of names at WP:Arbcom; likewise although there's one arb who currently doesn't have the CU bit enabled that's purely an administrative matter as if he requested it back it would be immediately granted. Ordinarily I wouldn't raise a point this trivial, but given that this page is currently little more than people pointing out examples of you jumping to your own conclusions rather than bothering to conduct the most basic of research and of you denying that this is the case, this is directly pertinent to your candidacy.

   So bearing in mind it will take a while to check the global rights logs of every arb we have ever had, I am still of the opinion several arbs have had periods of not using checkuser access, or not having checkuser access, whilst being arbs (even as you note, a current arb). And while I don't doubt all arbs have the option to use oversight in their role, very few were granted oversight before becoming arbs. And my point primary is that these technical tools are purely an administrative matter and issues detected by their use can be shared where relevant by the normal secure channels without every arb having to use them.

Aside from User:Nick

2. How does your statement I know what is and what isn't important when it comes to the guidelines... remotely make any sort of sense when the IRC channel had to explain a fairly basic essay WP:CIR to you last night. Do you actually think you know enough about our policies, guidelines and more prominent essays to even begin to understand what you know and what you don't know ? I would appreciate a detailed and lengthy essay from you discussing what you consider to be important policies and what you consider to be unimportant policies for the role of an Arbitrator, and for the role of an Editor.

   The wording used in my statement is precise, and I do not consider all the guidelines to be 'important' in general editing, or in dispute resolution. I consider all policy to be important, as everyone should follow policy wherever possible for good reason. In regards to essays, I have not got a perfect database of all three letter acronyms in my head, comments on IRC like CIR is required will not automatically engage essay finder mode in my brain, you have to put WP: in front (unless it is an obvious one like ANI, AfC, AfD RPP, NPP). You have asked for a detailed lengthy essay on the subject of my views on what are the most important rules, I am happy to oblige, and will put it on a userpage when its done (might be a few days).

Questions from Collect

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   The mere existence of a case does not automatically mean there will be sanctions, but it is worth noting that any serious issue which has not been resolved in talk-page discussion or at WP:ANI will be serious enough to almost certainly require sanctions of some description. This does not mean serious sanctions are required in every case.

4. If an administrator has openly stated a strong aversion to an editor's article edits on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   Provided the administrator has only stated a strong aversion to the edits and not made statement or implication about the editor, it would be reasonable to assume the administrator is still impartial. However, this would require consideration of the track record of the administrator, the circumstances of the edits, the nature of the statement, and any other interactions between the editor and administrator, including the editors response (if any). It may be highly relevant why the administrator has stated a strong aversion to the edits, is the administrator involved in a content dispute with the editor? If so, the administrator may not be fully impartial. The context is very relevant.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, ought there be a delay to give that editor sufficient time to address "new evidence"?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, ought space and time for rebuttal be given?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

   a. A good faith request for a case to be postponed for a very limited amount of time is reasonable.
   b. Reasonable time for rebuttal should be given.
   c. If the new evidence is substantial, reasonable time should be given for rebuttal.
   note: If in any of these examples there is a pressing need for a speedy intervention, this may be stated with compelling reasons, whereupon a temporary remedy such as a preliminary motion could be considered. If it appears the time taken to arbitrate without a temporary injunction would cause unneeded grief or disruption elsewhere, such a motion would be reasonable.
   d. Arbitrators should be allowed only to use additional evidence in explanation of their conclusions regarding the long term behavior of a party. (Where it is not possible to give every contribution by a user as evidence). Or, where both parties have overlooked a glaringly obvious piece of evidence which is crucial for the proper construction of the evidence that has been presented. (for example, the parties give talk page comments as evidence in a dispute, in the comments given as evidence they refer to a prior discussion, which has not been presented as evidence by either party, this prior discussion could be included as evidence as it is required for a full understanding of the evidence that has been presented).

Question by Newyorkbrad

2. Your candidate statement links to this listing of alternative accounts, in which you have (voluntarily) also listed several "accounts under the control of persons related to" you. The latter include a single-purpose harassment account that is blocked indefinitely with the block summary "long-term abuse." Without compromising anyone's privacy, can you shed any light on what is going on here?

   The list is a (complete only to the best of my knowledge) list of accounts which people close to me in relationship or geography have created or hold, I consider that I am responsible for them (sensible as a CU would probably return a close or complete match to me) so for all relevant purposes they are my alternative accounts. Although I have not checked the exact details, I believe there is a long-term vandal that creates accounts with usernames attacking Oshwah, therefore all such usernames are blocked on sight. This is the same incident Tony asked about below, so you can look into it in more detail.

Question by TonyBallioni

2. How did Steve know who User:Oshwah was if he has never edited Wikipedia before other than as a troll account that has your technical data but isn't you? For clarity I am referencing User:I Love Oshwah which was blocked by Ponyo 5 days before Steve's apparent main account (User:Steve A. McDonald) was created. For the benefit of other voters, this was the conversation you had with CheckUsers about the troll account controlled by Steve.

   If any clarification is needed, I had discussed User:Oshwah (who I know on IRC) with Steve as part of explaining what was Wikipedia is and what I was doing on it. He thought it would be funny to 'interfere' and created several 'troll' accounts (User:I Love Oshwah & User:Dysklever is gaaay while I was not there. (using one of my computers which I had lent to him). He did not have the time or technical knowledge to do major damage and I dealt with the issue with Ponyo's help and Steve has subsequently moved on (he failed his course), I still live in shared accommodation (property in Cornwall is incredibly expensive), although this was unfortunate, it will not happen again.

Question(s) by User:ShakespeareFan00

2. You state your experience with English law, how would you consider a precedent based model would be applicable to making arbitration decisions where precedents although considered are not such a large consideration?

   Although ArbCom does not follow precedent in the same binding way the courts do, there are some similarities, for example consensus is followed in ArbCom cases, the state of consensus can be seen in past decisions, therefore past decisions are relevant. In English law a precedent is followed because it allows the law to be followed in a consistent way by different judges, and previous decisions also give a view of the state of the law. Naturally some people would like to see precedent or democracy in Wikipedia, and to some extent this is happening via contrivances of consensus that create a similar system. But in truth Wikipedia has a greatly more informal and undefined system than that of English law, and while this creates some uncertainty, this is part of the Wikipedian culture.

4. The Arbitration Committee has to tackle many issues, but I will use a specific topical example, How would you if appointed handle an arbitration case where 'inappropriate' language or innuendo about a female BLP or contributor was alleged?

   I would treat the wrongdoers harshly in either case. BLP issues are very serious. Editor abuse issues are very serious. Any inappropriate language against women is not acceptable, whether it is sexually orientated or not. The genders are equal, but sadly there is a lot of negativity and people from don't accept this. Any language used to demean the role of women either in Wikipedia or society is unacceptable. As few as 9% of our contributors are women[2] (upper estimate 16%) and this is partly because of the prevalence of negative systemic bias and cyber-bullying directed towards women. If elected to ArbCom, I will not make any attempt to temper my attitude on this, it is a serious matter. Only 17% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women, despite the massive efforts made to increase this a few percent by many editors, which only shows the scale of the problem (many of the articles I have created are related to Women in Red, and an editathon contest is ongoing through November with prizes, so get involved and help solve this). So in short if appointed to ArbCom, and seeing a case where language or innuendo has been used on a gender related basic against women, I would not be lenient, as such behavior is unacceptable.

Question(s) by WBG

2. All throughout your editing history, there have been numerous instances, where your knowledge of different policies or guidelines along with your execution was clearly questionable and lacking in competency.In accordance with your replies before, (some of which tend to be evasive), there's no doubt that you do not have any mal-intention et al and that it's a part of the learning ladder.But, do you think that good-faith can alone substitute for competency?Supose, that you are elected as an Arb, the quality of problems/disputes brought before you will be quite complex and will require much precise and accurate calls.How do you convince me that good-faith advice(s) dealt by you in such a position, will not be incompetent and will not lead to bigger dramas than on various venues (esp. given ArbCom's general reputation for it and the scrutineering eyes for the entire community.)?

   As I have said several times before, the main - indeed the only - reason I consider myself qualified for ArbCom is because of my skillset. I am not a member of the “ten year club”, and have not memorized the entire content of all 3400 essays, just the policies and guidelines. (and I only finished that recently), therefore my ability is not in my knowledge of every word of meta-discussion, but in my ability to find, interpret and apply it.
   For example, in a real case, I have a case against Cornwall Council, the client has not paid council tax because he is exempt under the The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992, but the council think otherwise, now before taking on this case, I had limited knowledge of council tax law, because only the most basic 300-500 laws out of about 140,000 are actually taught at university. The important skill is being able to identify the law in that area, and become knowledgeable ‘’before’’ then presenting the case.
   I believe that here, just as in real life, the important factor is the core principles and a decision based on the common sense application of WP:5P is worth more than a contrivance of obscure essays. Competency is defined as "the ability to do something successfully or efficiently." - I do think that I am able to achieve this, my ability to completely ignore drama and focus on the core issue is astute. So yes, I do think that a good-faith backed opinion is equal or better to the alternative, and that a solid good faith opinion is less likely to cause further drama because it is based on undeniable core principles rather than arguable nonbinding statements in either essays or guidelines.

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for standing, nice to meet you! Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I cannot agree with Opabinia regalis's handling of the matter in that instance. The underlying point of the statement is well founded, and one of the templates has been deleted since for that basic reason given. However the execution is itself unprofessional, repeated use of the f-word for no clear reason, informal language bordering on "rant" - not a good look for an arbitration ruling section - and drawing on a localised cultural reference to support a main point. As well as giving otherwise useful advice about snarky comments in a comment that itself is supposed to be a decision, but rather seems to be a Village pump proposal for policy change regarding WP:CIVIL, particularly in regards to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, which also seems inappropriate. Making a clear explicit reference to the core issue would have been preferable, at least in my view.

Question by User:K.e.coffman

2. Given your statement at the WP:MILHIST project on the attempts by POV warriors to delete articles on Nazi war heroes - evil murderers - enemy soldiers [3] (all used pejoratively, I assume), would you be able to adjudicate disputes relating to MILHIST matters neutrally?

   In almost all cases yes, however I am not entirely neutral on the subject of Nazis and matters connected to the Great War and World War Two, members of my family fought the Germans throughout the entire Great War, and World War Two, and although my great-granddad died some time back, my granddad who was an officer in WWII, is a living embodiment of that time period. If editors bring a dispute to ArbCom related to disagreements over which photograph of Mussolini is best for the infobox, or the exact way to title articles about the Great War, I would have to recuse myself. This is not to say I can't practice NPOV in these areas, just that subconscious cultural bias could affect my viewpoint. However, I am British and perfectly neutral on matters such as the American Civil War, Vietnam and Korea, any war without significant British involvement, any war that happened prior to 1900 and modern conflicts such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Question by User:Loriendrew

2. A number of accounts are associated with you, including some where the password was forgotten or vandalizing accounts (the "Steve" situation). ArbCom members have access not only to highly confidential information, they also generally have access to quite powerful tools. What are your plans on keeping a secure account/computer?

   I intend to setup 2fa at the point it becomes an option for me to do so. At no point has anyone gained access to my Wikipedia account and I do not see any potential issues there. I understand the majority of ArbCom activity is conducted off-wiki via email and other secure mediums, I am a data controller registered with the ICO as part of my work. I will re-register in my new non-profit volunteer role should I become a member of ArbCom. Part of the ArbCom role as I see it is keeping these communication channels secure as they contain personal information and dealing with this personal information confidentially. I can at least say that I am fully trained in client confidentiality and I can fulfill the requirements for data security.
   
   Additionally the accounts connected to me (which have been used for various dire things, like posting gibberish on my talk page), were not setup by me, and no data of mine (or anyone else) was accessible, and my policy on lending computer time is tighter now. In the past I have edited Wikipedia as a hobby. ArbCom is more of a volunteer work role, tighter security and different procedures will be required as a result.

Questions from DGG

2. Officially, Arbcom is supposed to deal primarily with conduct disputes, not content, and to interpret and apply policy, not make it. But it has always seemed to me that most conduct disputes have their origin in disagreements over content, and that Arb Com has in fact been most successful when actually dealing with content concerns, as in the pseudoscience and nationalism related cases, even though it may have to word it indirectly. And it has also always seemed to me that the necessary interpretation of policy can in effect amount to making policy, as with the cases involving BLP. What do you think? DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Any issue of conduct that doesn’t have a valid content related reason behind the argument does not need an ArbCom case to impose a ban. Therefore it is not surprising that ArbCom is dealing primarily with editors arguing over content, and otherwise seems to dealing with procedure and policy concerns. I don't think anyone is completely immune from nationalism issues (even me), and even the most innocent supposed fact may fall into the realm of pseudoscience. Therefore any editor can get into an argument of that type, so it is the most troublesome issues and the most troublesome editors that cause most the cases, and if ArbCom is seen to be making policy in these cases, I would say its more just bringing real world viewpoints into Wikipedia procedure to interpret problems that are primarily rooted in the real world. For example our BLP policy is practically a replica of libel and republication of information liability law, it is hard to see a viable alternative interpretation.

4. There have been very few actual arb com cases in the last few years, which might indicate that the community is doing better with its problems, and that the basic rules are becoming well understood. It seems to me that most of the business at arb com has been dealing with ban appeals, which is done on the mailing list, and often involves considerations of privacy. I'm not sure we do very well at this. What do you think about this? DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   Obviously I do not have access to the ArbCom mailing list at this point, but I would say that ArbCom does reasonably well at keep private matters private, but there seems to be some increasing views they don't always do things right, or on time. There are some factors that could be greatly improved regarding the procedure and reporting of private cases, I daresay the current ArbCom team has this on their to-do list. I am going into this in the understanding most the job is happening on behind the scenes, this is fine by me. The fact there are few Arbitration cases is partly in my opinion due to the fact the community has got pretty good at banning troublesome editors before escalation to the highest levels, and the fact ANI has become more of a institutionalized process itself. Perhaps more can be done to reflect the evolving role of ArbCom as dealing increasingly with ban appeals, I have some ideas on this, but without seeing some cases in practice I can only be of limited help.

6. When I joined arb com 3 years ago, most arbs thought that the terms of use were not necessarily enforceable policy at the English Wikipedia, and that arb com has no role in its enforcement. I strongly disagreed at the time--I think they are inherently policy to the extent they are applicable, and arb com has the same jurisdiction as for other behavioral policy. (Of course, we may want or need to interpret it further--and certainly can extend it.) To some degree, I think it possible that the prevailing opinion may have been changing a little towards the position I hold. Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   The principles contained in WikiMedia Foundation's Terms of Use are enforceable by ArbCom, and are enforceable by any administrator or editor via the extension of the Terms of Use that is policy, guidelines, etc. Of course the TOU are set by the foundation, but I will note that the community could petition for them to be changed if it had any reason to do so, and provided the change is reasonable, it would happen. Therefore I see no reason not to treat the TOU as equally valid to policy in situations where they are applicable.
   Within reason, the TOU is an enforceable policy of the English Wikipedia. Naturally much of the TOU is concerned with legal disputes involving the foundation, and ArbCom is not going to deal with these "office issues", we cannot for instance enforce the TOU in its capacity of being a binding contract between editors and the WMF, as that requires office intervention, but.

8. As I see it, most arbs are of the opinion that the requirement that editors avoid outing applied equally to good faith and bad faith editors. I however think that it ought to be interpreted to apply with much less rigor to those who appear to be editing in bad faith or deliberately against the terms of use. (I recognize the difficulty in deciding initially who is editing in bad faith) Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   My stance is that outing should be avoided in most circumstances. There are many situations where outing is perfectly acceptable, or excusably done in good faith, for example, in instances of paid editing it is common for other editors to track down the original job posting, normally somewhere like upwork, and post a link to it on-wiki without thinking about it, and that may then reveal the identity of an editor (or several editors). This is acceptable in my opinion. Anyone should know not to link their real identity with their on-wiki identity in this way if they don't want the scrutiny, and they after all, are breaking the TOU.
   But I have to draw the line somewhere, if an editor publicly outs another editor out of spite during a content dispute, that is unacceptable (even if it to prove the other editor is a member of a neo-nazi movement) these concerns can be dealt with privately by email, and any issue should be dealt with in private if the identity or perceived identity of editors is considered a major factor.
   I am not going to think badly of someone 'outing' these people, or anyone outing a company employee glorifying their company profile with 90% dubious promotional edits and only a thin veil of secrecy, since it is normally very obvious if that is happening. If my local member of parliament is editing some election topic from work, those edits get publicized on twitter feeds, in my view it is acceptable to republish these facts on-wiki. In short, basic common sense is enough to determine when it is or isn't acceptable to link an editor to a real person or organization on-wiki. But in general those clearly breaking the TOU for their own dishonest gain can be legitimately outed.

Questions from power~enwiki

2. Can you describe how you would handle a situation where you determine some of your statements made on-wiki turned out to be made in error?

   If its an editing issue then normally I just apologize or explain my reasoning to whoever seems most likely to be interested, often because they have just reverted me or otherwise made comment. If its a procedural thing I will just thrash it out with people on IRC until I understand what people think I should be doing instead. I try and base what I do editing-wise on what other people have also done before me rather than being off-the-cuff, but that is not always the best course of action because I can't be certain they got it right, or that I am copying them correctly. My more interesting editing problems occur when I find a split of people who do things one way or the other, with differing views that only tangentially meet, I generally just go with whatever I thought was correct to begin with in those cases. You won't find me switching positions in a hurry. I am generally solid on issues not directly connected with editing, if I think someone is doing something with an ulterior motive, I am unlikely to change my mind, even if many people disagree with me, this doesn’t bother me too much, as there are always people who will agree provide I have a good reason for believing what I believe, and as I always do, I consider that part of having my own opinion.

Question from Rschen7754

2. Less than two months ago, you were blocked for edit warring. What happened? --Rschen7754 07:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I unfortunately got into an edit war with Eckerslike, see User_talk:Eckerslike#Cornish_nationalism. The admin who did the block said: I blocked both you and User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver for edit-warring on Cornwall for a minimal amount of time. This is because you were edit-warring, and I wanted tgo show you in a serious manner that this should not be tolerated. Sinmce you seem to discussing the issues on Talk:Cornwall now, the block was immediately lifted, but you will be blocked again if you indulge in edit-warring again. (note the block was only 3 minutes, as it was a warning rather than preventative.) The "war" covered: change, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert. And subsequently talk page discussion and a subsequent interjection & revert then there was a debate over the images and infobox between other editors, and then I rewrote the whole lede again [4]. Some vandalism by User:Frenchie2510. And then there was a debate over the number of Celtic nations not matching in different sources and parts of the article. (see: history for full details).

Question from Fish and karate

2. You say you are a lawyer. Could you advise for how long you have been employed as a lawyer since graduating? Just a rough number of years would be fine. Also, in what area(s) of law? Thanks! fish&karate 10:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, about 3 years, and I work primarily in private international law although I did a fair bit of UK consumer rights work when starting out. I am still studying part-time, to become a Barrister (a higher paid and more difficult job) after combined study with an MA.

Question from Biblioworm

2. On this page, I have drafted some detailed proposals (already written as formal motions) which would reform ArbCom's policies and procedures. As an arbitrator, would you propose and/or vote for these motions? If you only support some of the proposals, please name the ones that you support and the ones that you do not support. If you do not support a particular proposal, please elaborate as to what, if anything, would make the proposal acceptable to you.

   I agree with much of what you have written. Although in my statement I make it clear I have no plans to reform ArbCom, I am open to reasonable community proposals to effect change where it would improve the functionality of the Arbitration Committee. That being said, I would probably make some changes to what you have written if I was for any reason proposing it myself. These are:
   Eliminating ArbCom's responsibility for certain matters -
   it would be sensible to get a draft opinion from the WMF before beginning the process of officially proposing this, the draft opinion ought to give us an concept of the anticipated cost of paying a customer service team to deal with this role and the possible implications of having to re-elect the functionaries team, many of whom are embedded into the WMF in useful roles. Likewise, a preliminary RfC should be considered to debate the various slightly different alternative ideas for removing private matters from ArbCom's remit, as the community has produced various other plans, some involving an alternative WMF vetted volunteer team to deal with the role, something that I would expect to gain at least some traction, a larger debate would clarify that this is the best idea (assuming it is) and make it easier to move forward with it.
   Streamlining the Arbitration Committee's procedures -
   Even this is not necessarily going far enough in my view of what I would do to streamline the process, it does seem it could be a general improvement, but if I was given free rein to change things I would cut out much of the current process entirely and make significant changes related to the process related to evidence/timeframes/statements/rulings.
   Due process in Arbitration Enforcement -
   I have no real opinion on this, I have no experience in the enforcement area at this point.
   Allowing motions by the community -
   This is such a sensible idea that I would happily propose it myself, it might help to integrate ArbCom with the community.

Question from SilkTork

2. Hi. Thanks for stepping forward. I am asking this same question to all candidates. What can the committee do that the rest of the community cannot? I've been asking the same question of all the candidates, but your nomination is not going to succeed because you do not have the required experience, you are not an admin, you have recently been blocked, you allowed your computer to be compromised by a vandal, you don't understand policy, and from your answers you are argumentative rather than reflective. However, despite not matching the requirements that would allow the community to vote for you in good faith, you seem to be an intelligent and reasonable person, and you must be realising that you are taking up people's time on what is for the Wikipedia community a serious and significant process. So my question is, will you withdraw your nomination? If not, why not? SilkTork (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I will not be withdrawing. I have three main reasons for this. 1. I met all the requirements for standing in the nominations when they opened, if those running the election somehow did not properly represent the communities expectations for candidates, then that should be addressed for the 2018 nominations. 2. I don't necessary think the issues described make me a bad choice for ArbCom, given the fact that as ArbCom is the eventual target for all disagreements, it is not your average noticeboard, more the upstairs complaints department. It does not deal with content issues, manly issues close to needing office intervention, and those gong beyond what can be dealt with by reference to policy and beyond that which can be dealt with by ordinary consensus. 3. If no-one votes for me, then it won't take any time to count the non-existent votes, ad if people do vote for me, then I am a valid minority candidate. Therefore I don't consider that I am wasting anyone’s time. 4. I still take this seriously, and would be perfectly happy to argue unblock requests and give opinions on the few cases that ArbCom deals with. I am very good at dealing with the most difficult issues. So the fact that this is a serious and significant process is something I am aware of, and have taken note of.

The vote counting is not an issue, it's the preparation that people have to go through before they cast their vote that I am thinking of. Those voting will read through candidates' statements, these question and answer pages, and the voter guides. And then look for themselves into a candidate's contributions history. This takes time. The more candidates there are, the more reading and research that people will have to do. This is acceptable when the candidates at least have some chance, but given your history, with respect, you don't. I do agree with you, however, that we should perhaps look at the nomination criteria, though historically the community have always wanted to keep Wikipedia as open as possible, and to allow for the exceptional. There tends to be one or two candidates each year who are doing it to be disruptive or for their own personal fun, and we tolerate that. But in your case I thought you were a genuine candidate who was just a bit misguided, and you sounded reasonable, so I wondered if I could appeal to you to withdraw in order to save people the time and effort of reading through all the material related to you. SilkTork (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Beyond My Ken

2. Would you please seriously consider withdrawing from the election, as you are manifestly unqualified to serve on ArbCom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   seriously consider - done that, still here. I am not trying to be a pain, and I appreciate numerous people would like me to withdraw because they really really don't want me to be an Arb. But given that there are only a few candidates more than spaces, and that I have answered all these questions, and people have commented on me, and that some people have expressed that I am a good choice (IKR?), and given that I did meet all the requirements on nominations opening. I will remain a candidate, who is unlikely to win.

4. Have you considered the possibility that while you may meet the technical requirements for a candidate for Arbitrator, the multiple comments coming your way suggesting that you drop out of the race are pointing out that you do not meet the practical requirements as seen by long-time well-established admins and editors? I do not believe I've ever seen a candidate for ArbCom about whom a serious and well-supported request for mentoring and removal of permissions has been filed. [5] Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I honestly think someone should align the two, an RfC in time for the next election would be in order methinks. And possibly something to recognize that while there are over 130,000 potential voters, the outcome is seemingly decided by about 50 people, they clearly don't want me to be on ArbCom, and I daresay that as a result I will not be, but that is no reason for me to withdraw. I am not interested in obscure Wikipolitical agendas, and the fact that I support minority groups, some minority positions and have only got a 60% success rate in deleting articles is not a major concern to me.

6. Do you understand that while there may be 130,000 potential voters, last year, for instance, a little over 2000 ballots were cast, and of these under 2000 were considered valid (WP:ACE2016) – and that was considered to be a good turnout – so that if 50 people are suggesting that you withdraw, that's a fairly significant number in relation to the number of voters who will participate in the election?

   Yes, if I gather everyone who has made disparaging remarks about my candidacy and insisted I am something like a "incompetent moron sheepshagger" or "WoW Druid fail" (no clue?), it is 0.03% of the active user-base and 2.5% of those that voted last year. Really a forgone conclusion(sic). No, if you don't want me to be elected, vote for someone else, make a voter guide that says I have no chance, ask me to withdraw three times in a row, tell everyone to vote for someone else, whatever - all the normal stuff people do in elections.

8. Without reference to WP:Arbitration Committee, please explain in your own words your understanding of what the Arbitration Committee does, what its remit is, and how it operates.

   The arbitration committee is an unpaid mediation service which works for the WMF in resolving the most difficult conduct issues and breakdowns in collaboration which occur within the English Wikipedia community. It has the remit to deal with and resolve all instances of editor conduct which have not been resolved by unilateral or group action by administrators. It has the remit for oversighting serious privacy and harassment issues, and will deal with the most serious instances of editor abuse in co-operation with the WMF, which the most serious cases are passed onto. It is also responsible for considering any requests for unblocking where administrators are unable or unwilling to do so. It does not have remit to change policy or deal with content disputes. It primarily operates by closed email and mailing list requests, and will deal with matters in private if desirable, if the matter is dealt with publicly, the procedure is to let everyone say something within an acceptable word limit, and then make the most useful comments they can think of to resolve the issue, often successfully. Block appeals are generally dealt with by email in private. Although not part of its official remit, ArbCom members will generally assist in matters that require persons identified to the WMF as part of the functionaries team.

10. Subject to correction, to the best of my knowledge:
    Although it may at times refer a matter before it to the WMF, the Arbitration Committee does not "work for the WMF", it is elected by the en.wiki community and acts on the community's behalf. "Editor abuse" is only an issue "passed on" to the WMF when there are potential legal ramifications, otherwise the Committee carries the responsibility to deal with those matters. As far as I know, the Committee does not deal with unblocking issues (although individual Arbitrators, in their roles as admins, may do so) unless the block involved is an ArbCom or CheckUser block -- the WP:UTRS system exists for general unblock requests. The Committee does not "primarily work by closed email and mailing list requests", it "primarily" considers publicly posted case requests. Email and other private communications are used for certain matters which the Committee determines are best dealt with privately, otherwise transparency is the ideal. I have no idea what "ArbCom members will generally assist in matters that require persons identified to the WMF as part of the functionaries team", but it's worth noting that you did not mention that ArbCom decides, with community input, who receives Oversight and CheckUser rights, and that all Arbitrators (unless they specifically request not to have them) are given those rights upon election to the Committee. (At least, all admin Arbitrators do -- I do not think that the WMF would allow a non-admin Arbitrator to hold these advanced rights.)
    Given this additional information, do you believe that your understanding of the function of the Arbitration Committee is sufficient to become an Arbitrator? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes.
    
    You point out that ArbCom acts "acts on the community's behalf" but have you not grasped that as a non-profit, the WMF also does? note that ARBCOM says: "It was created by Jimmy Wales on December 4, 2003, as an extension of the decision-making power he formerly held as owner of the site." So one could say that ArbCom works for Jimbo.
    Last I checked, abuse was illegal, so my statement was correct, as "serious instances" of editor abuse always have "potential legal ramifications".
    Have you discussed the role with prior arbs? I have been told it includes a significant amount of email and mailing list work. This also seems to be the opinion of DGG. And without (obviously) access to the closed private areas to check, this is just an impression.
    CU & OS are now decided by elections.
    functionaries are functionaries. 'nough said

12. The WMF is a non-profit, sure, but they have multiple concerns, and have consistently shown that serving the en.wiki community is not always their highest priority among them.
    The Arbitration Committee does not work for Jimmy Wales any more than the President, Congress and Supreme Court of the United States "work for" James Madison or the other authors of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, less so, because Wales devolved some of his power and authority as founder onto the Arbitration Committee, and it would be practically impossible at this point for him to take it back without a major revolt from the community of en.wiki editors. Nor could Wales unilaterally change an ArbCom finding without the same result, so, no, ArbCom does not "work for" either the WMF or Jimmy Wales any more then I do.
    "Editor abuse" as a term of art does not generally consist of "abuse" as legally defined. Also, please be aware that as their servers are located in the United States, American law is generally controlling, not the law in any other jurisdiction (although individual editors in those jurisdictions may be subject to those laws).
    Whether there is a "a significant amount of email and mailing list work" is irrelevant, your statement that cases are "primarily" generated through this medium is outright inaccurate. Cases are generated in the manner I presented, though publicly posted case requests. (As always, I'm open to being corrected by current or former Arbitrators.)
    CU and OS are not "decided" by voting. The Arbitration Committee can, and does, seek community input, which may take the form of !voting (note the "not" symbol which precedes "voting") but the final decision on giving out advanced rights remains in the hands of the Committee, not the community.
    "functionaries are functionaries. 'nough said" explains nothing, answers nothing, and, worse, makes entirely no sense in the context of your earlier statement "Although not part of its official remit, ArbCom members will generally assist in matters that require persons identified to the WMF as part of the functionaries team."
    Finally, your response was incorrect in one other respect: You are obviously unqualified to be an Arbitrator. Thus, I must conclude that you were also wrong in saying "I am not trying to be a pain".
    In light of this response, are you aware of the meaning of the expression "Giving the middle finger to the Wikipedia community"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So you think Jimbo is somehow comparable to an author of the US constitution, even though he did not write any of Wikipedias core policy, current principles or indeed anything else we still use, rather than how I look at it, which is that Jimbo/WMF is comparable to the queen/cabinet and arbcom to minsters, to whom power is devolved. (if you need to use the government as an analogy). And despite the fact you think ArbCom is immune from Jimbo's power I will note that Jimbo had no problem sacking EssJay. If the community suddenly didn't like ArbCom anymore, Jimbo could scrap it in an instant, and replace it with whatever people thought would be an improvement. Technically only paid employees are "employed" by the foundation, but there is no doubt that ArbCom is doing a role that would otherwise be costed by the WMF, not by the community, as ArbCom is slightly beyond the scope of the community itself, bridging the gap to the office.
    I think you will find abuse is illegal in the US and most other countries, and since all editors are individually liable for their criminal actions, it is their own countries law that would be chiefly relevant, not the location of the servers, which is relevant only to the liability of the WMF itself (expect is certain situations to detailed to mention here}. Perhaps you think abuse and harassment is a 'term of art' and not directly connected to the real world. I don't.
    On your argument on the CU/OS I will note that although technically not an election (since being changed from an election to definitely not an election), it certainly works like a vote, much like RfA. It is still for all practical purposes a vote. The so-called consensus model seems to break in places where anyone uses bolded comments, its a figure of speech I am using to show some democracy has crept in (even if you don't like that, it has happened, and I did not cause it). My comment on the functionaries is self explanatory, if you want to know what they are doing, go and ask them, but its secret so they probably won't tell you much detail.
    And finally, for the "middle finger", maybe you could find an image of Mussolini that includes the appropriate gesture? I finally remembered why you don't like me.
    
    And since you have already asked 5 questions and are about to to start repeating yourself even more, either ask another question or reply' on my talk page, don't keep commenting on what I have written just before, this is not a debate area.

14. Actually, this is not your page to control, the Electoral Commission holds sway here. But as it seems unlikely that you'll answer any additional questions from me (and since your answers to my other questions have been so unsatisfactory), I'll not ask you any others.
    BTW, I never said that I don't like you: I don't know you well enough to know if I like you or not. I'm simply appalled that someone with your lack of qualifications would ignore reasonable suggestions to step down from an election they know they have no chance of winning, a rather WP:POINTy action.
    Please feel free to use the space below for whatever statement you'd like to make, if any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to state for anyone that is interested that it was never my intention to run as a "competent" candidate as defined by the established administrators here. My qualifications, such as they are, is that I am good at arguing, good at finding a compromise, and a newer editor. It is my opinion that many people say ArbCom is "out of touch" with the general editor community, and as a perfectly average member of said community I could help to solve this perceived problem. I am not an admin and have no plans to be one, and that gives me a slightly different viewpoint on Wikipedia than the admins, former admins bureaucrats and functionaries that are standing.

Question from Carrite

2. In what universe do you believe that the above is an appropriate graphic to illustrate a blurb for Wikipedia's Women in Red initiative? Is this not a troll? What does this say about your entire campaign? Carrite (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   In what universe do you believe that the above is an appropriate graphic to illustrate a blurb for Wikipedia's Women in Red initiative? The real universe, which according to Google is called "Laniakea" (eh?) and is otherwise known as reality. Is this not a troll? It is a picture of Wikipe-tan on the beach, no trolls are present in the image. I am not a troll, I assume that you are not either. What does this say about your entire campaign? That I care deeply about systemic bias.
   
   Actually it says alot about you, and everyone else who consider this image "inappropriate". I will explain. (explanation courtesy of a friendly psychologist). This image itself is neutral, it is a CGI image of Wikipedias unoffical mascot on a beach. the only reason people think its offensive is because they are automatically stigmatizing the image due to deep rooted bias against women, in this case sexualised systemic bias against women, which is worse. There is nothing inherently sexual about that image, and anyone who is truly neutral would not see it as offensive, therefore the image itself is a representation of the issue of systemic bias. Which is why its there, it is supposed to make people think.

Question from Smallbones

2. I’m asking all candidates this question and will use the answers to make a voter guide. Please state whether you will enforce the Terms of Use section on ‘’’paid editing’’’. Should all undeclared paid editors be blocked (after one warning)? Are administrators allowed to accept payment for using their tools for a non-Wiki employer? Can admins do any paid editing and still maintain the neutrality needed to do their work? (Note that only one admin AFAIK has declared as a paid editor since the ToU change). Do you consider the work done at WP:COIN to be useful, or is it just another “drama board”? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Please state whether you will enforce the Terms of Use section on ‘’’paid editing’’’. - yes. Should all undeclared paid editors be blocked (after one warning)? yes. provided there is clear evidence the warning was deliberately ignored. Are administrators allowed to accept payment for using their tools for a non-Wiki employer? generally no. exceptions should be made in limited circumstances with agreement at the office level, for example User:cyberpower678 is a "paid editor" but since archive.org is a non-profit with compatible aims to Wikipedia, this is acceptable. (even to be encouraged). Can admins do any paid editing and still maintain the neutrality needed to do their work? it depends on who is paying them, I doubt an admin taking payments from corporate sponsors would be neutral or retain the trust of the community, I would support the requirement for a new RfA for admins who become paid for their edits after an initial RfA, whether they are actually being paid to use the tools or not. Do you consider the work done at WP:COIN to be useful yes. is it just another “drama board”? also yes, but in the absence of anything better they work fine.