Callanecc

Hi everyone, I'm Callanecc for those that don't know me and after some suggestions to do so I've decided to nominate. I've been actively editing for around four years and an administrator for almost two years. I've also have the CheckUser and Oversighter permissions since being appointed to the Audit Subcommittee in August 2015 (and since March have both permissions as a community functionary). I volunteered as an Arbitration Clerk around three years ago (as of January) so have seen up close how three different groups of arbitrators have worked, both in public and the limited discussions on the clerks' mailing list. I'm currently an OTRS member and a ACC user (and have been for around two and a half years), so have experience talking to people who are new and/or very upset at how they've been treated. I've also been involved in dispute resolution around the place, including closing various discussions (such as the Hilary Clinton move request).

Having been an arbitration clerk for so long I've got a fairly good idea at the internal machinations of the Committee (although some still drive me nuts) and how various Committees (after each election) have approached various issues (some not widely known). I've also developed some ideas on what I don't think it working and what I could do to change them. Given my experience as a clerk and at OTRS I've developed a fairly good ability to defuse situations by responding calmly and civilly to people who may not be doing the same.

My experience with arbitration enforcement has taught me a few (sometimes hard) lessons which, I think, have been really helpful before nominating for the Committee, but I'll leave further comments about that to any questions people have.

Now the mandatory stuff - I am already compliant with the access to nonpublic information policy (and the OTRS agreement). Regarding alternative accounts (which are disclosed on my userpage), I have User:Callanecc (alt) as a testing and public account and I also have User:Calanecc & User:Callanec as doppelgängers (which have never edited). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Callanecc ( talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2015 candidate: Callanecc Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Worm That Turned

2. Hi Callanecc, I'm glad to see you running. As you know, I'm Dave, I was on Arbcom between 2013 and 2014. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?

   Thanks Dave. I have thought about it, and it's one of the main reasons why I was hesitant in nominating. However having made some unpopular clerking decisions and a bunch of checkuserblocks I've come across parts (limited I know) of the 'dark side' and so far (at least) I've been able to brush it off and keep going. Regarding the worst case scenario, there really is no way to prepare other than to talk to people around you and let them know that it might be coming. Other than that, I generally stick with The West Wing approach "if they're shooting at you - you know you're doing something right", and keep plugging away and if it gets really bad take a break and come back fresh. Having said that, any advice you've got would be very much appreciated. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Subcommittees

2. The Audit Subcommittee was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our Check Users and Oversighters. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle it. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the functionaries en banc, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   I'd disband it and hand the job back to the Committee since they are the only ones who can take action to remove the permissions (or otherwise sanction). I'd have complaints sent to the Committee's mailing list, once submitted one or two arbitrators investigate to determine whether whether there is a case to answer. If there is a case to answer (depending on what it is) I'd again appoint a one or two arbs (or functionaries) to investigate, collect the evidence and present it to the Committee with a recommendation. Which in effect, is a more 'corporate' way of investigating issues which need to remain private. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

4. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   Eventually move it to UTRS per the RfC (but I suspect that's a long way off), but until there is a policy basis for this (where UTRS admins have the ability to impose conditions and discuss appeals). I would modify BASC as follows:

   I'd keep BASC with its current jurisdiction over community site-bans and long-term blocks as I believe its important for there to be a different avenue of appeal. I would however move appeals CU & OS blocks to the functionaries en ban (as they are usually the experts). I would have four-five arbs only on BASC for three (ish) month terms. When an appeal comes in they decide whether they'll hear it (meets conditions and has a flying chance). If it is prima facie accepted one arb is assigned to it (but they can ask for help with different parts of it), they investigate and present the applicable evidence (ie blocked/banned for, has since then) and their recommendation (send to community, unblock with/without conditions, decline) to be voted on by the whole subcommittee (needing a majority). Arbs completing a term on BASC are generally not required/asked to draft cases so that they can concentrate on BASC. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Addition: Thought I might add this on the end, I think one of the big problems facing the Committee (and I see it every year as a clerk) is that the new arbitrators go in with very little idea of what it's like on ArbCom. And I'm increasingly of the opinion that my idea for BASC is a great example of that: because I don't know what BASC/ArbCom is actually like (in addition to everything else which is happening) I don't see the problems that the current (lame-duck though they may be) are seeing, tell us about and trying to deal with. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Current Disputes and Cases

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

   An ArbCom site ban is the most serious sanction that can be dished out on the English Wikipedia. There are two ways I can see me voting in favour of site banning someone:

   1. Lesser sanctions (such as topic bans and other restrictions) have been tried but the disruption caused by the user continued and/or spread to other areas.

   2. Due to a serious breach of policy or norms (such as OUTING) which requires strong action to prevent further similar actions and deterrence from someone doing it again.

   At the end of the day my test will be, are they a 'net-negative' and how likely is it that there behaviour will improve with active editing.

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

   It depends a lot on the person and what type of incivility it is. There are things like preventing a user from replying more than x times in a discussion or mentoring by a specific user/s (trusted by both the Committee and user in question) who is able block or impose other restrictions as they believe are required (which is similar to civility parole). Using the edit filter to try and prevent some interaction ban violations would also be quite useful, though I'm not sure whether it would be able to do it alone.

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

   To an extent, although I think the current Committee has done quite well at repairing that. I think it primarily exists in thoughts rather than actuality which are far harder to address. The way to fix it, as far as I can see, is to continue to hold administrators to higher standards than non-admins and pull sysop in addition to other sanctions when they would be appropriate.

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

   Absolutely, although sometimes it would be good to allow a filing at ARCA with evidence of the misconduct for which they were warned if it continues rather than go through another case.

Insider Baseball

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

   In the majority of cases yes. Even if it is restricted to the drafting arbitrators making proposals and others making comments on them it provides an opportunity for everyone (arbitrators, parties and others) to get on the same wavelength. Having said that, as a drafting arb, I won't always use the workshop in the same way.

   In cases which have a somewhat binary outcome (and sometimes those focussing on specific editors) the are less useful as the outcome is less in dispute and needing to wade through comments as they are made (and usually somewhat duplicated in similar proposals). The other issue is that they encourage the view that arbitration cases are based on consensus and that proposals with 'supports' from community members will be given weight.

   But as I said, in some cases they are useful in others they aren't.

Questions from Collect

2. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   Absolutely, though in most cases when issues are brought to Committee there will be sanctions of some sort. Regarding whether they have to impose sanctions, no of course not, but as I said, but the time things get to arbitration sanctions are usually needed but not always.

4. If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?

   It's difficult to know for sure whether the administrator is involved or not without knowing the wider context (such as the reason they made the comment and/or whether they had evidence).

6. Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?

   Yes, suspending cases as recent Committee's have done over the past few/couple years seems to be a good approach. The difficulty is when the case involves multiple editors and/or a topic area, and that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

   It's not but it depends on whether there are evidence overlaps between the evidence presented by the various 'evidence providers'. I'm generally in favour of word count extensions for parties (to defend themselves) where I think that the rebuttal they provide will be useful at arriving at a final decision (if I believe that there's anything to the claims being made against them).

Question from Smallbones

2. Wikipedia is starting to have a reputation for bullying and misogyny, see, e.g the recent article in The Atlantic by Emma Paling, " Wikipedia's Hostility to Women”.
   Are you willing to take serious steps to stop bullying of editors on Wikipedia? especially bullying directed toward women editors? Is this one of your top 2 priorities? What would you consider to be a more important priority than stopping the bullying? Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 15:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   The Committee has a fairly wide range of powers here, but a lot of it is cultural and that's something that the Committee only has limited power to deal with. As an arbitrator I will affect the culture as best I can by enforcing a high standard and in that way it is a high priority. I'm not sure that I'm going into the job with a list of priorities but controlling (I disagree that it's something you can stop per se) bullying by any editor not just female editors. I think my record here is reasonably clear.

Questions from GrammarFascist

2. Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are cis, trans or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in Triesenberg if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I won't count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force affirmative action. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.

   This question is in pretty stark contrast to Worm's and having been the target of some abuse and attempted outing I'm not going to give any more information than what I've already provided: I'm male and from Australia.

4. Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.

   Pro: Non-admins have a different experience on Wikipedia and different perspectives on heaps of issues which make for a more well-rounded Committee.

   Con: The technical limitations non-admins face (deleted contributions primarily) aren't insurmountable but do make a little more work for other arbs in copying over the content to the arb wiki.

Thanks for responding, Callanecc. — GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Questions from Gerda Arendt

Thank you for stepping forward!

2. Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?

   If you want me to close it now I'd close as consensus in favour (though I think 4meter4 hit some bits on the nail). I've primarily discounted the 'no' argument since it is textbook WP:OWN, whereas the 'yes' arguments actually explain the reasons they believe an infobox would benefit the article/readers. Regarding the yes/OWN: my reading of the Infoboxes case is that the opinion of main editors should be taken into account but should not override those of others. Having said all of that, if I didn't need to close it now, I'd probably suggest that it would be worth getting further comments (on the infobox) from other community members as I don't think there is enough there for a strong clear consensus decision.

Have you ever seen an argument against having an infobox which was not (basically) OWN? Compare Beethoven, for example, and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria for an opera.

2. An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ( "not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's " The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."

   Believe it or not I actually thought blocking due to this comment alone was a little harsh. However Eric then made another comment (which again clearly breached the TBAN). However context here is important, Eric has been blocked for breaching this GGTF TBAN five times this year, with a long history of blocks for other reasons. Blocks are meant to prevent further misconduct/disruption. Arbitration remedies (IMHO) should be strongly enforced given their context, that is, imposed by a body outside the community as a last ditch effort to control disruption. Though I do see the benefit and have closed (despite my reputation I'm told) AE reports with no action or just a reminder given that the edit didn't do any harm and was otherwise good.

   If it had just been the first comment, I would probably have just ignored it or warned him against further violations. The second comment however indicates that Eric either isn't seeing that this is a problem or doesn't care, in which case previous enforcement blocks haven't worked and to hold him to the same standard set they should be enforced.

   Regarding the rest of the question, arbitration enforcement is designed not to be 'fun', it's designed as a sledge-hammer to force compliance (and in some cases avoid the site ban which was also proposed).

   As I commented above, 'softer' remedies which focus more on training and development (as opposed to enforcement), for example mentoring, definitely have merit where the editors (mentor and editor being mentored) are willing to participate and there is a specific area which can be targeted.

You may remember that last year we looked at an edit brought to arbitration which you said (first) was " a crystal clear violation" (need to uncollapse "Pigsonthewing", closed as "No action taken; no violation" weeks later - 23:07, 21 July 2014 -, and look for your name, or for "result"), while Yunshui said it actually made Wikipedia better. - My suggestion was not mentoring, but first double check if there is really a violation, then talk to the editor before a block. - My concern (and only question) is not any special case but the amount of editing volume which goes into "enforcing" minor "violations", editing which I would prefer to go to article writing. If an edit that improves Wikipedia is seen as a violation of a restriction, something is wrong with the restriction or the look at it.

This was towards the beginning of my time at AE and one of the lessons I learnt there was the difference between technical enforcement (or a minor violation) and enforcing when there was actually a benefit of their action. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you. You don't have to answer which benefit the above mentioned block might achieve, or a block for me for adding a third comment to a discussion, a comment which was not even about the restricted topic. We had that also. Of all edits on the Laurence Olivier talk, mine was mentioned on AE, remember? I would have laughed about a block.

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Question from Yash!

2. In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred? Ya sh ! 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Hi Yash, there are a few that I remember, but having been a clerk I've seen them all and filed away most of them:

   Overall I think the current Committee has been too hesitant to remove discretionary sanctions (and article probation) from various articles/topic areas. You can see my data collection and ideas at User:Callanecc/sanctions. As far as I'm concerned there are too many areas covered by discretionary sanctions where there isn't a need (that is, a proven, continuing belief that normal admin/community enforcement isn't enough) to have them any more.

   One of the other things which I've commented on a few times is making decisions (voting) in private where there really isn't a need to, see this for example. Voting in private when quick decisions (recent desysops for example) need to be made is fine, especially given that the paperwork involved would make it take longer than is practical. Likewise giving Philippe CU & OS so quickly effectively skirted the procedure on the matter and didn't really give the community a chance to discuss and comment (as would happen at the normal appointment times).

Question from Biblioworm

2. Do you have experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?

   I have helped resolve a few disputes on-wiki: some of the issues which surrounded G. Edward Griffin and to a lesser extent Rupert Sheldrake for example, also see of my edits to Talk:Yakub Memon and here. There are others buried in my contribs history which I can go searching for if you'd like. Regarding off-wiki experience, resolving disputes is a fairly large part of my job which I'd rather not go into detail about on-wiki (so it's more of a trust me I'm an anonymous user account :P ).

Questions from Antony–22

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?

   With a very literal interpretation of individual free speech I imagine it could. However being incivil prevents others from contributing in the same way or at all, thereby limiting their free speech. On a website which has people from all over the world and has cultures and experiences from all over the world contributing in a way (being incivil) which does not discourage others is extremely important. That said there will always be a certain degree of incivility and some of that comes a part and parcel with a multi-nationality, multi-cultural project and a very limited degree has to be accepted, that's not to say though, that the person being incivil should get a free pass but rather that softer approaches (explanation and engagement) are more effective (than templates warnings and blocking)

4. It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing. What is the line between incivility and harassment? How much does incivility, when it doesn't cross the line into harassment, affect our ability to retain editors, including but not limited to its effects on the gender gap?

   For me, incivility becomes harassment when there is a repetition of incivility and/or personal attacks with the same people involved. I think it would be difficult to argue that continuous low level incivility does not discourage people from staying, I'd probably argue that it is one of the main contributing factors. Regarding it's effects on the gender gap, I can't say for sure (ie personal experience) but from the bits and pieces I've read the low level incivility is something which encourages female editors not to stay. However, given that a bunch of new accounts don't give away their gender, I'd contend that it has an effect on everyone not just female editors.

5. Arbcom's actions have come under srutiny from the outside press lately, often leading to articles with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. (The press likes succinctness too, so no more than a few paragraphs worth of text.)

@ Antony–22: The first thing I'd say here is that I wouldn't until the decision has been finalised and avoid the mistake from last time. Are you happy for me to wait until then or would you like it now based on the proposed decision? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 22:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

To clarify, the question is not about the proposed or actual decision, but about how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed. But if you want to wait, it's fine with me. Antony–22 ( ^talk⁄ _contribs) 04:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm splitting and revising the question to make it more clear what I'm getting at, here, is the new version. Antony–22 ( ^talk⁄ _contribs) 20:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles? For example, do you think that releasing statements, such as been done once on a previous case, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they be made more effective?

   No I don't think it's the role of ArbCom to issue press statements, I would (really really) hope that the WMF would (with their paid professionals) deal with and respond to press queries rather than have a Committee who are (usually) untrained and inexperienced write statements for the press.

   However, if the WMF won't play ball then I think the Committee does need to clarify issues as briefly and simply as possible and after a thorough drafting process (which includes summarising).

4. This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press, of no more than a few paragraphs, on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. Do not cover or express an opinion on the proposed or actual decision, but concentrate on how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.

   As I said above I don't believe that a statement should be released before the case is closed as everything which is written can be read in different ways. And as we found during GamerGate when a statement is released the media assumes that the issue is closed.

6. One last question. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals from academic and cultural institutions. This is perhaps causing some angst that the community and its interactions may become "professionalized" to the exclusion of established editors. Do you feel this fear is warranted? How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

   I don't accept the premise of your question for a few reasons so please forgive me if I don't answer it directly. Just a point before I do though, many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge is not a neutral framing nor, do I think, generally true.
   I'm not convinced that there's angst about professionals participating in Wikipedia, I'd contend the "angst" (such as it is) is more about something different/changing then about professionals specifically (but I don't have evidence for that). I'd imagine that the vast majority of editors would agree that it is a great change as it gives us (as a community building an encyclopedia) additional knowledge/experience and credibility.

   I'm not sure how the increasing participation of professionals has contributed to heightening expectations of civility. Personally, I believe that that's a good thing that we have more professionals as it encourages a more pleasant environment and helps close the gender gap (both in contributors and subjects of articles). The changes associated with increasing numbers of professionals make Wikipedia the best place possible to write an encyclopedia which needs people from a range of backgrounds and interest areas (including those who write articles and who support people writing the articles, those doing maintenance for example). The best way to allow for that is to have a supportive and civil workplace where everyone feels welcome and where both established editors and professionals are able to work together guiding each other.

   I'm hoping that's answering your questions well enough?

Question from Rcsprinter123

2. In your own words, please explain the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and why its existence is necessary. And what, if any, changes or reforms would you support regarding the structuring and processes of Wikipedia's arbitration system?

   Regarding the Committee
   The one line version is to resolve and handle issues which the community can not, either because it is divisive, long-term or involves private/sensitive information. The longer version is that ArbCom exists to do things when the community can't, whether that's because:
   1. the community tried and couldn't (including conduct disputes and long-term blocks/bans for which appeals have already been attempted)
   2. the issue involves private/sensitive information
   3. the issue is divisive and/or the community doesn't have another way of dealing with it (removing sysop/crat right for cause)
   4. the WMF says they do until there is another appropriate method endorsed by the community (CU & OS).

   Regarding reforms
   I've already addressed some of this in Guerillero's questions and to a lesser degree in the question from Yash. Primarily I'd like to streamline (or remove) the two Subcommittees to ensure that they are operating at best efficiency.

   I know transparency is mentioned every year (which makes me wonder what stops it from happening) but my version of transparency is a little more specific: I'd like to see the motions page used a lot more than it currently is even if there is no section for community comments.

   I'd make one or two arbitrators responsible for policing the functionary activity levels and putting a motion on the motions page when someone meets the conditions for tool removal (without needing to first propose it on the mailing list).

Question from Human3015

1. I saw you on Talk:Yakub Memon, thanks for your efforts on that article. That article was under WP:ARBIP. Are you willing to intervene in India-Pakistan conflict related topics and will you enforce strict sanctions on these topics? Because as per my experience these topics are mostly ignored by the ARBCOM, while these topics needs more focus. Can you name 5 India-Pakistan conflict related articles? Thank you.

   Hi Human3015, I just want to clarify a few things about ArbCom's role vs an enforcing administrator's role. ArbCom assesses the overall situation and determines whether (in this instance) discretionary sanctions are needed and imposes them if needed. Uninvolved administrators (who are usually not arbitrators) assess individual situations (conduct by editors or an article) and determine what if any sanctions they can impose will improve the situation. So it makes sense (in a way) that ArbCom would ignore the situation after imposing discretionary sanctions unless an issue is brought to their attention. I'd suggest to you that asking someone to name five articles which are related to the India-Pakistan conflict really doesn't show anything other than they can use categories (etc). Instead here are five India-Pakistan related articles I've been involved in AE with (I know the English isn't great there but it'll do): Bharatiya Janata Party, Battle of Chawinda, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India and Kashmir conflict.

Question from Dave Dial

2. With the Gender Gap being such a serious issue, as well as bullying and Systemic bias, how can you convince female and feminist editors that you will not be just another anti-feminist ArbCom member that will discount these issues? Especially since you were one of the closers that signed this statement during the HRC move request just April, 2015. Quote:

   We haven't given any weight to the arguments that because she is a woman and chose to keep her maiden name Wikipedia should be bound by that

   Thanks.

   Well that's a question I didn't think I'd get. I don't really think there is a way which I can show it other than asking those editors who aren't sure to look through my record. What I will say though, is that (unless it is related to the matter at hand) I don't consider the stated gender of an editor when making a decision as I believe that (no matter their gender) is discriminatory (or at least bordering on it).

   Regarding the Hilary Clinton move request, if you quote the full dot point (rather than just an arbitrary part of it) we actually said We haven't given any weight to the arguments that because she is a woman and chose to keep her maiden name Wikipedia should be bound by that as we can't see that that is reflected in the article titles policy (see following dot points as well) and the third dot point We note that WP:MOS#Identity (regarding the subject's preference) is only considered if we don't believe that there is a consensus either way or if we believe that there is agreement that there are two 'common names'. Members of the community are bound to follow policy unless there is a good reason not to and that's what I will do as an arbitrator.

Question from User:Beyond My Ken

2. Do you believe that SPI is the only legitimate mechanism for determining the nature of suspicious editors? If so, what do you advise long-term editors with a good feel for behavioral patterns to do about questionable editors when there is no clear candidate for who the master might be?

   Depends what you mean by suspicious, there's a multitude of places to report users for various things. If you're referring to socking issues there's SPI, AN/ANI and the functionaries/ArbCom if the evidence involved is private.

   It depends, on how strong the evidence is, long the account have been around and the topic area. If there is more than one suspicious account they can easily be taken to SPI as socks of each other. If it's a single account the SPI talk page is a good place to get other opinions, but it depend on the evidence you've got.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

2. Is Terms of Use a policy  ? Do you believe that ArbCom can sanction undisclosed paid editors if there is evidence that they violated TOU ?

   Yes, however that doesn't matter (in the scheme of things) too much because as with the global CU and OS policies it can be enforced on all projects (by the local community, including ArbCom). Regarding your second question, yes ArbCom can (not has to) sanction undisclosed paid editors if they violate the local policy on undisclosed paid editing (which is drawn from the TOU). Hope that answers your question.

Question by Müdigkeit

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?-- Müdigkeit ( talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   It depends how much the Committee has going on that week and how much I have so I'm hesitant to assign an arbitrary number. From experience I will be able to put in sufficient time each day/week. If you want it I can give you a number of hours.

Question by Atsme

2. What are your thoughts about WP:POV_railroad, and how would you respond to it if you saw diffs demonstrating repeated aspersions cast against an editor by a group of editors aligned with each other (patterned behavior) to get that editor site banned or blocked? -- Atsme ^{📞 📧} 04:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Hi Atsme, how are you? Regarding your question, one of the good things about an arbitration case is that they usually push this sort of thing into the open with both 'sides' presenting evidence in a way which is quite different to AE or ANI for example. In the theoretical example you provided it would appear that intervention of some sort is needed (what that would be depends on the individual circumstances). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm doing well, Callan. Thank you for asking but above all, thank you for volunteering. I think you'll make an excellent arb. Best wishes. Atsme ^{📞 📧} 05:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks :) Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Question from User:Wikimandia

2. Many editors were unhappy with the results of the recent Neelix fiasco, in which the AC closed the case as soon as Neelix resigned as an admin, despite the fact that many of the issues brought up in the evidence page had nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of administrative tools or even his redirect spam, including building walled gardens and violation of WP guidelines concerning advocacy in editing. This led to accusations of a double standard for admins and regular editors. (If a non-admin had done the same, there could be no such easy dismissal as we don't have tools to resign). Neelix never acknowledged or agreed to stop any of this behavior, simply (eventually) apologized for the redirects only and then later resigned with no further comment. There was significant support for at least a topic ban at the ANI. Do you believe a topic ban or other measure should have been applied in this case?

   I'm going to answer this question by describing what I would do if I had been on the Committee (let me know if I haven't answered it well enough):

   I would have supported the motion to desysop (if it were a proper level 2 desysop) had Neelix's explanation not been acceptable due to the loss of trust and left the community to handle the other issues, as I'm not convinced that the community was given an adequate chance to do so. They/We already imposed a ban from redirects so it's possible that the investigations would have continued on ANI. If the case were opened anyway (that is, I was in the minority) and Neelix resigned the tools, I would have voted to suspend the case for a year (unless Neelix returned to editing) but with a strong warning that if they return after the year and continue any of the same misconduct then they should expect their conduct to be quickly examined at ANI or brought to ArbCom (since the Committee retains jurisdiction). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Questions from Ryk72

Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

2. The en.Wikipedia community has been likened to that of a gaol (US:prison), with members of various gangs aggressively supporting each other in disputes, which are policed by trusted inmates. Do you agree with this view? If so, why so? If not, why not? To what extent are the behaviours which lead to this view enabled by AN/I, AE & ArbCom?

   No I don't, if for no other reason than editors are free to (and do) leave Wikipedia at any time for as long as they want. Whereas in goal (Australia: Correctional Centre) if you tried to do that a guard would put some lovely metal bracelets on you and show back to your cell. I don't accept that it's enabled (especially "aggressively") at those venues. However perhaps part of that association is that it's same people (especially at ANI) doing the policing and the remedies proposed are sometimes excessive.

4. Do you believe that our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution? If so, is this a good or bad thing? If bad, what role should ArbCom play in addressing this?

   Especially ArbCom, yes it is adversarial. There was an attempt (I think last year) to be a little more inquisitorial in arbitration cases but (from memory) it only lasted in that case. It's definitely worth considering as it prevents some of the arguments and clashes on arbitration pages. At the same time however, it increases the workload of an already (very) busy Committee. The other downside I can think of is that it makes the arbitrators look less like completely neutral third parties and more like 'combatants', but I think education and explanation could fix that perception. I think it was Casliber who mentioned that he'd be in favour of making ArbCom more inquisitorial and I agree.

6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?

   Advantage: Ensures that there's no "first mover" advantage to bring a case (to ArbCom in this case) and that it is fair for all participants.
   Disadvantage: Might discourage some editors from bring something to dispute resolution when it ought to be there due to a fear of facing sanctions themselves.

   I wouldn't change it no, I think it's fairly effective at allowing DR bodies (ArbCom, ANI, etc) to deal with misconduct no matter who the editor is (the one who brought the case or the one is named in it) and doesn't give a benefit in being the first one to get to ArbCom/AE/ANI/ANEW.

8. We see regular use of WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK to justify indefinite blocks of new editors entering contentious topic spaces, without those editors being explicitly linked to banned accounts. Is this use justified? If so, why so? If not, why not?

   (I'm assuming by banned you're also including blocked?) Regular?
   Yes it's justified, being a CheckUser, and an SPI clerk before that, you get pretty good at recognising the signs of sockpuppetry. There have been times where I've been positive that an account was a sock without knowing the who the master was. Sometimes I ran a CheckUser and found the master sometimes I didn't still blocked. In those cases however, it's almost always worth getting someone else to check over the evidence and make sure, and to ask the suspected sock where their knowledge came from (ie explain the evidence) and making a judgement about whether they are a sock of someone or not based on their response and the other evidence you have.

10. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Remedies, ArbCom implemented a "500/30" limit on edits to the Palestine-Israel (the 3rd topic space in which this remedy has been used). What are the positives & negatives of this remedy as written? Would a more technical/formal implementation (akin to semi-protection) be an improvement? What other improvements, if any, might be made?

    Positive: Will hopefully the reduce the disruption by preventing the drive-by comments and POV editing.
    Negative: Reduces the number of editors (including those who make minor edits, uncontroversial copy edits and updates) available to edit the articles and hence the general pool of active editors.

    Regarding the implementation, AFAIK it's going to be implemented with an edit filter which is a technical solution (so hopefully the semi-protection and blocks won't be needed. Regarding whether to introduce it as a form of page protection there are benefits and drawbacks of that, however I suspect the WMF wouldn't be too happy about it.

    I'd like to see an explicit review date incorporated in the remedy (although in the past that hasn't been too successful) rather than it being applied indefinitely (forever).

12. A hypothetical editor, involved in a contentious topic space, regularly derails Talk page discussion with personal views on the subject, anecdotes of their off-Wiki involvement in the topic, epistemological first principle reasoning for exclusion of material, "hatting" of discussions, and snide attacks on new editors. Administrators have failed to address this editor's behaviour; WP:AE has failed to address the editor's behaviour. What should be done?

    Hopefully admins and AE wouldn't have failed as the case seems fairly clear. In the circumstances you've raised (assuming someone has filed a case request, which is very very likely) I'd accept the case so that we can look at the behaviour of the editor and at the reasons the issue hadn't been solved in earlier steps.

14. Would you be prepared to recuse from 1/3rd of cases, and encourage other Arbs to do likewise, so that each case might be addressed faster, and by fewer Arbs?

    In theory yes (see below), but in practice (from experience) it generally happens anyway by arbitrator inactivity and recusals.

    It isn't usualy having more arbs active on a case which makes it take longer. The length of the case is determined by how much evidence and workshop proposals were submitted, how much time the drafter(s) have, how many extensions (time and word length) were given and how much time each individual arb has to look through the evidence. So rather than abstaining (not recusing) from an arbitrary 1/3rd of cases I'd rather abstain from cases (that is, voting on decisions) where I don't believe I'll have time, and I (think) I'd decide that when it comes time to vote on the case.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

No worries, let me know if you want more detail. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Question from User:Blackmane

2. This is a hypothetical that is somewhat based on real threads that have occurred on WP:AN and WP:ANI in the past. An editor who self identifies as having a mental disability or disorder has been indefinitely blocked for a variety of violations, take your pick of edit warring, NPA, disruption, CIR, POINT, Godwin's etc, and is now seeking to return to editing. Quite a few members of the community have sought to advise this editor on why they were blocked but struggle to get the editor to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how Wikipedia works with those who suffer from such disorders. This is an open ended, and deliberately vague, question that will no doubt be difficult to answer, but is more for me, and presumably other editors, to get a grasp of your thoughts. Blackmane ( talk) 02:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   As you identified this is a very broad question, but here are some thoughts.

   I guess the most important one is to keep in mind that no one on Wikipedia is in a position to determine whether someone has a mental illness, nor to try and treat it. In the vast majority of instances keeping information personal and private is important (which is where ArbCom and the functionaries can play a role). In addition, accusing people of having a mental illness is pretty wholly in personal attack territory and depending on how it's done might stray into WP:OUTING territory.

   If it's possible and reasonable having an experienced editor and/or admin working with them (in private if possible & appropriate) to highlight the behaviour which others find inappropriate might be helpful depending on the situation. This approach (in my experience) has a reasonable success rate especially where the editor in question is able to focus on an area which interests them (whether content creation or maintenance) without being harassed by others looking for things they do wrong.

   If, however, the editor is not productive or the misconduct they are displaying is disrupting others from contributing to the project then it is unlikely they'll be unblocked or stay unblocked for very long.

   Hope that's in the direction you were after, if there's any further information/detail you (or others) want please let me know.

Question from ThurnerRupert

2. Re: key success factors of the linux community [duplicated from Candidates discussion] linus torvalds created a community of programmers working on the linux kernel 1991. the community grew since then to nowadays 5'000 commits a month, 5 times more than 10 years ago. alone the linux kernel mailing list receives more than 20'000 messages a month, 3 times more than 10 years ago. innovative technologies are added to the kernel first from universities, individuals, companies, bearing the GPL. what do you see as the key success factors of that development, and what can you take off that into your work at wikipedia?

   I'm not really familiar at all with the linux community however after having a brief look it appears that there are a few important factors to consider. The linux community primarily relies on subject matter experts and really only includes them, whereas Wikipedia relies on crowdsourcing, really mass crowdsourcing, ("anyone can edit") which brings in a huge range of other issues. And they are issues which have a massive effect, consider, for example, the problems we continually have to deal with around POV pushing alone, which isn't as much of a problem for linux. Another big difference is that the people working on the linux kernel are experts whereas Wikipedia and the WMF encourage new editors, a bunch of whom are not experts in the content or in the operation of a crowdsourced encyclopedia or on MediaWiki. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

-- ThurnerRupert ( talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Riverstogo ( talk) 03:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply