Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Nuro Dragonfly

2. Hello, my question is simple; how will you correct the arbitrary removal of musical/band articles by specific types of 'editors' who claim a lack of 'notoriety' due to not being able to find some link to another website as somehow being the only standard WikiPedia excepts? I personally barely, if at all in my original works, will cite a website, with some exceptions. The arbitrary attitudes of these types of 'editors' is the reason that the Wiki has a serious lack of editors, who have the time and energy to correctly and with good faith write articles, to fill those missing ones, are falling by the way side. To be specific the individual attitudes of Admin Editors who have very little care for the efforts of others, regardless of some attempt at a non-biased and neutral Wiki adherence. I consider the complete body of works by musicians and bands to be the goal, not some mistaken interpretation on 'notoriety' on a specific album/song, and therefore it to be omitted. How will you deal with this matter in the Wiki Admin sphere post haste? Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 02:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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 ?

   Firstly, while all current arbitrators are admins, it is not required and I don't think that should reflect positively or negatively on anyone running for a seat. Also, the role of an arbitrator and an administrator differs. I am not terribly familiar with all of the tools an admin uses. I am familiar with AFD (I think my match rate is 75% or so) and a few other admin areas, but most of my "admin" work has been reverting vandals and reporting users. I also think that the time commitment and response time for an admin is greater than an arbitrator. That is to say that while an arbitrator will have to spend time doing Wiki arb work, they are not responding to a request that needs action as soon as possible, like a vandal editing Wikipedia or a user harassing someone else. Thank you for your question and if you need clarification on anything let me know.

Question from Carrite

2. You are not an administrator and your block log is a mess, showing two separate indefs. You haven't cracked "Very Active Editor" status (100+ edits) for the last seven consecutive months. What can you say to voters to reassure them that you are a sound candidate for the site's Discipline Committee? Is there something you would like to say about the block log that would lend clarity? Thanks, —tim

   I do think many of my blocks were justified blocks. There were a few that I disagree with strongly, and in the "legal threat" case, most editors who commented about it felt the same way. You can see my talk page archive for the discussion, or I will try to find it. The other indef I had was a mistake on my part when things got really heated and I reacted personally (I had relatives killed by terrorists and the editor in question has a userbox where he shows support for one such organization.) I also think most of my blocks were basically one episode, especially the last groups of blocks I had, so it's not as if I'm being continuously blocked. Not to justify my blocks, but I do think that for an editor who does edit often in contentious areas, a block is bound to happen and I don't think it should reflect too poorly on me, and indeed, for many of the discussion Arbcom handles, such as DC or cases, someone who had to deal with blocks, bans, bad admins, etc. it would be good to get a differing viewpoint. I don't want to say I matured since it's been only a year or two but I have changed fundamentally I think on how I edit Wikipedia and I realize that in many cases it's not worth it to get heavily involved and take a step back, analyze the situation and proceed from there. I haven't edited as much as I would like since I am trying to stay away from contentious areas and I have been doing just gnome or maintenance work. I don't think that means I'm not here, I'm active daily, I just don't edit as much as I read, but I do have the time to participate in Arbcom activities. I do hope I answered some of your concerns and thank you for your question. If you need any clarification on anything, I'll be glad to clarify.

• Just to add, that I think a comment like this would not be appropriate on Wikipedia, [1], I don't think I have my religion specified on my userpage, I might have it on one of my subpages, but I'm not sure nor does it matter. I also don't find what my religion has to do with my candidacy for Arbcom. Did you investigate the religion of the other candidates? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

We can agree about one thing — I don't give a flying fuck about your religion nor does it matter a molecule. Carrite ( talk) 02:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Since we're playing Linky-Dinky-Do, HERE is something which actually is posted on Wiki that says the same exact thing with colorful pictures. Carrite ( talk) 02:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Also, if we're gonna be importing links to my posts on Wikipediocracy, I much prefer THIS ONE. Carrite ( talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

So why mention my religion? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Why do you? Carrite ( talk) 18:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I mentioned my religion on my candidacy statement? Do you really not understand how wrong it is when you have 4 candidates, and only one gets mentioned as a Jew? If you were looking at my userboxes that I've had since 2005, you could have pulled out lots of other interesting facts about me. But pulling out the Jewish card is not a thing that people do. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Funny that you get so worked up about somebody mentioning your self-declared ethnicity but don't have the least problem with my assessment of your self-declared politics, your self-declared urban origins, your self-declared place of residency, or, most tellingly, my assessment of the content warriorism demonstrated by your voluminous block log. If you don't want to march under a particular flag, stop waving the banner on Wiki. QED. Carrite ( talk) 01:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

That's because location or politics is usually not the item mentioned by antisemites. I can't believe you are so unaware of that. And to address your even more offensive statement, where am I waving a banner around Wiki proclaiming my Jewishness? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The same place you are proclaiming your right wing politics, your Greater New York background, your Jersey residency, and your aspiration of being a clarinetist. It drives you crazy not to have the last word in an exchange on wiki, doesn't it? Carrite ( talk) 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't mind not having the last word. I just don't like antisemitic comments and I have the right to address it. Your comments are antisemitic. Whether you mean it or not is not the issue, I already told you how it comes off and the decent thing to do would be to modify your comment when told that it is most often used in an antisemitic purpose. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Did you just call me an anti-Semite? Carrite ( talk) 17:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

No, I didn't. I thought you want to stop this back and forth. I won't be responding to any other comments unless it requires a response. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, I think we can all agree that this sort of back and forth sparring is non-collegial and sub-optimum. best, —tim /// Carrite ( talk) 20:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Questions from My name is not dave

2. While, in principle, one does not indeed need to be an admin to be a Arb, do you believe that part of your role may require looking at deleted pages, or content that has been Revdel'd, something which both requires admin rights to view? If so, how would you go about this being a non-admin member of the team?

   Since an arbitrator signs a WMF privacy policy I don't think it is a major issue for seeing things that were revdel for privacy issues. I imagine it's policy somewhere that I can be presented with the information I need to make an informed decision. If not, then it should be. Since being an admin is not a requirement for an arbitrator, obviously I would be able to see information I need.

4. Following on from the last question, do you think that having non-administrators as part of the Committee would mean that the Committee would be less productive?

   No

6. At least two of the ArbCom cases this year have resulted in desysops. If you have never been an admin yourself, do you think that your decision in such a case would impeded by the fact that you only understood WP:ADMINACCT (for example) in theory?

   I'm not sure why you need to be an admin to understand that admins need to be accountable. When an admin makes a comment on someone's talk page and then is repeatedly called out on their false comment, I don't think we need to be admins to determine if the admin acted appropriately or not.

Question from Nick

2. Is your candidacy an opportunistic attempt to make use of the woeful lack of better qualified candidates?

   No.

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?

   In general, we should strive to avoid even the whiff of a COI. Obviously it's not always doable, but that's the goal. For me, I obviously would have a COI with cases involving content-conduct in certain areas and if the case is not on the subject but on people involved in the subject, then I would most likely recuse. A grey area for me, and this is off the cuff, would be for example if someone I've edited with and dealt with in the past in subject A is now involved in subject B. I would take a good look at the case and everything and everyone else involved, including if we have enough arbs involved, before deciding if I can be 100% impartial consciously and subconsciously.

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 do think we did have a non-admin at one point.) I do think there is value in having non-admins just like I think there is value to having more than one person on the committee. We all bring different opinions and experiences. As a non-admin, I also think, depending on the case, it is good to get opinions from those on the other side of the admin mop closet.

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?

   That's a very tough question. I think some leeway is warranted, but that depends on the "crime." I think there is also a difference between an indef and a block. Even if someone has years under their belt, they should not be immune to a block. We do need to take the whole picture into account and realize that yes, we are here to build an encyclopedia, but we also want people to edit in a friendly and collegiate manner and not feel harassed or bullied by senior people. I think this specific issue is one that we face more often and is one of the most difficult ones to adjudicate.

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

2. You are running partly as a champion of civility, but looking through your block log I came across your describing another editor as "a terrorist who endorses terror" (the reasons for which I know you have explained in your answer to Carrite's question above) and commenting about an admin who enforced an AE action with "Jimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project." Do you consider those to be examples of civility? Does your "terrorist" reaction give you any insight into the way people on the opposing side to you in a disagreement might feel and might react (perhaps with incivility)? How would you define civility?

   I already explained the "terrorist" comment and I stand by my other comment about that specific administrator. That comment might not be the most civil, but it's certainly not the same comment as "run along you little shit" and certainly not the worst I have seen from that specific admin or other editors. I don't think my "terrorist" comment has any bearing on how Arbcom discussions should go and I understand that people get heated sometimes and I would expect some leeway in discussions that get heated, but the goal should be people having a civil discussion. I think to define civil is simply comment on the comment and not the person making the comment. There are nuances but I think to start, we should strive to ease off the whole "fuck offs" and comments like that. I also want to clarify, I am not running as a champion of civility, I just think that we have seen an increase in cases of civility and we do need to focus on that a bit more.

4. Your most recent block (in May 2016) was for "Disruptive editing, wearing everybody out, violations of WP:BLUDGEON" (and having examined it, I concur with that judgment - the block notification, unblock requests and discussion are at User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 5#May 2016). Do you think that block was justified? Would it be indicative of your approach to seeking consensus in ArbCom discussions? If not, how would that differ?

   I think that block was unjustified. I think bludgeoning is oftentimes used when you want to get rid of one side of a discussion. In that discussion, I and one other editor kept asking for proof of a supposed policy. We never got that, but instead got snarky answers. Could I have handled it differently? Sure. But I stand by my block in this case and think that if an editor asks for a policy they should get it and it's not bludgeoning to ask for it. I don't think this has any bearing on reaching consensus in Arbcom. Firstly, Arbcom is not editing an encyclopedia, they are discussing a case and then voting on it. If I'm in the minority, so be it. And finally, Arbcom needs to make decisions based on policy and needs to actually state what policy they are using for their decision and not pull it out of their butts.

6. Thank you for answering those questions, and I hope you don't mind my asking a couple more - this one is a follow up to your reply to my Q1. You say "I stand by my other comment about that specific administrator" (ie "Jimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project"), and then you go on to say "I think to define civil is simply comment on the comment and not the person making the comment". Are those two statements not contradictory?

   Perhaps, but again, I was blocked for that comment so the system worked, and FTR, I was blocked for NPA not CIVIL with that comment. I stand by my comment in that I feel my opinion to be true. If I say that on Wikipedia, that might be a NPA or CIVIL and blockable offense, but it doesn't change the opinion.

8. Can you please tell us of any major content/subject areas where you would always recuse yourself in ArbCom cases? (Sorry, I just realised my original version of this question was very similar to one above, so I've modified it.)

   The Israel-Palestinian dispute area comes to mind as one where I would most likely recuse myself from conduct/content issues. I am not sure if I would have to recuse myself with amendments or other housekeeping issues, similar to the one where I brought a request to change grammar in a ruling.

Questions from Collect

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

   No

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?

   I don't know if it means that "legally" that admin would be considered impartial but I think it depends on the context of the case. For me, I know that if I were an Arb and I had a case regarding a couple of editors here, I would recuse even if it's not in any area I interacted, just because we shouldn't give any whiff to being biased in our decision making.

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. I think we should give some delay, but we shouldn't extend a case for too long, but an editor should always have time to address evidence. b.It's tough to give a word limit but then also have one person facing multiple people giving evidence. An editor should have the ability to respond to all evidence presented and not have to decide due to limits or time which evidence to answer. c Yes. dNo. Arbitrators should only make a decision based on evidence presented and should not present their own evidence. An arb can present evidence, but then must recuse from making decisions.

Questions from WBG

2. Do you think that your dramatic involvement at User talk:Infamia, which very clearly highlighted your fundamental misunderstanding about the relation betwen sock-puppetry blocks with CU along with your complete ignorance about the use of discretion in tagging talk-pages of socks with block-notices, led to any overall good for the community, except contributing to a rise in tensions? As to your pathetic comments at this ANI thread, do you know that many ArbCom members have to often run private CUs and block accordingly in certain rare cases, without leaving any public trail of evidence?

   Not requiring a block notice on the talk page is not the same as having a fairly accurate and descriptive reason for block in the block log. A user, other editors and admins should be able to tell right away why someone was blocked just by looking at the block log and that doesn't mean you need to publicize the results of a CU or trail of evidence, saying I have evidence of wrongdoing is enough, merely saying you're blocked, is not.

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for standing! Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   I'm not sure, so I'll just share some of my thoughts on the matter. In general, I think we should strive to avoid "bad words." However, templating a regular with a level-1 warning template for something can very well be construed as a "fuck you." I know that in the IP area where you occasionally have "templatable" actions, I've never received or given a template, instead I/others post a comment on the editor's page information them that they did something wrong and they should fix it. I do think that posting a "you fucked up, fix it" message may indeed be inline with CIVIL, but that would be only if you know, or almost 100% know that the person will take it in kind. I guess it's always err on the side of caution in how you interact with people, and there are times when CIVIL doesn't just mean a fuck you, I also think that you occasionally see a "refer to Arkell v Pressdram" which is the same thing as telling someone to "fuck off." I do agree that sometimes the best course of action is to delay which oftentimes stops the drama before it gets too much. I have oftentimes wrote a post, looked at it, and then scratched it. I think when people are responding to others in a heated environment, they should write-twice, submit-once.

Question from User:ShakespeareFan00

2. 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?

   Can you please clarify the question? If we're just talking about someone using words about an editor merely because that editor is female, then obviously we have a CIVIL, NPA or harassment to deal with, same as with a male editor. But if it's something bad that is reported in RS that is appropriate for inclusion then we have the BLP and RS and notability guidelines to determine what negative information to include in an article.

Question 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.

   (place holder for answer. Nick, first it sounds like you're doing a homework question here. :) I will try to answer your question but it will take time to go through and give a detailed response. If you wish to clarify if you have specific cases in mind where you want to see if I agree/disagree that would be great, otherwise I will try to get to this question, but it is not just a simple response to a question.)

Question from Serialjoepsycho

2. Going back to the arbitration policy mentioned above and linked by insane hacker, also noting your block log, and some of your responses here, would you recuse your self from any and all cases related to WP:ARBPIA?

   As I answered above, I think that if it was a case about content or a person, I would most likely recuse myself. I am not 100% certain how I would act were it just a maintenance case, similar to the amendment request I brought that clarified the language by adding commas and changing words around. In general, I would act so that there would not be any assumption of COI.

4. So for clarity,would you recuse yourself from this very specific content where you have had so many problems? Would you recuse your self from all matters related to the Arab/Palestinian/Israeli conflict?

   I already answered this. I would most likely recuse myself on all issues but would think twice about a minor maintenance or amendment issue, and I would most likely recuse myself if there were enough arbs to decide, even on a maintenance or minor issue.

6. What is it that your ring to the table that an experienced admin such as Opabinia regalis doesn't already bring?

   Firstly, I am not running against anyone, I am running for myself. There are quite a few very worthy candidates running for a spot. As to what I bring is a different view on things and perhaps a fresh perspective.

8. I see you championing civility but you block log and your comments above suggest you've had issues in this regard. Is this more than some election catch phrase? Would you care to touch more on this subject?

   I have already answered this question above. As I wrote above, some of my blocks IMO were justified and others were not. Also, from my block log only one block that I can recall was a CIVIL issue and I already explained it and realized I reacted emotionally due to the circumstances. I would champion civility in that I think that is the major area where Wikipedia is failing. People throw out cursing, bullying and then we're told that is the way it goes and to get a thicker skin. But that is not how it should be. I once edited a page, and I added a RS and I then received a message along the lines of "you better revert or I'll take you to AE" without any discussion. It just makes for a bad atmosphere for editing and we as a community need to work on that.

10. I see you championing transparency. Is this more than some election catch phrase? Where exactly do you feel that ARBCOM fails to be transparent? What would you suggest to fix these issues?

    One issue that people bring up is that Arbcom oftentimes decides in private, or that Arbcom is too slow in handling cases. As I wrote in my statement, I think Arbcom can publish a monthly metric of pertinent information. This would help assuage people's opinion of what is going on.

Question from Softlavender

2. You are not an admin, you have been blocked 6 times in the past 4 years (mostly for civility-related issues), and you have made less than 14,000 edits on Wikipedia. Moreover, the recent post (!vote) you made at ANI [2] seems to indicate to me that you had not read and analyzed the lengthy thread and all of its diffs in-depth at all. What do you think qualifies you for ArbCom? Softlavender ( talk) 09:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Disagreeing with you at ANI doesn't necessarily mean I didn't read the ANI or underlying issues. I just don't think it's TBAN worthy. In that specific instance, I have my sympathies with David A. I have edited with him in the past and share his frustration to an extent on how certain edits are reverted on site by those who have a differing opinion, especially in regards to Sweden and crime. As you saw in my comment, I stated that I do have my concerns with how David A. is editing but not to such an extent as to give a TBAN.

4. You are not an admin, you have been blocked 6 times in the past 4 years (mostly for civility-related issues), and you have made less than 14,000 edits on Wikipedia. What do you think qualifies you for ArbCom? Softlavender ( talk) 03:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Most of my blocks were not for civility related issues. And again, your question has already been asked by other people and answered. In addition, block logs are oftentimes meaningless when the block is not justified, for example the "legal threat" that wasn't, or the block by Spartaz which was undone right away, etc. A good chunk of my editing has been in contentious areas and blocks are sometimes the cost of editing in those areas. Further, all of the blocks by Coffee were unjustified in my opinion and just handed out by Coffee when he was in his block-hammer phase and I stand by all those edits.

6. What do you think qualifies you for ArbCom? Softlavender ( talk) 04:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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 ) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   I agree with you 100% on this. I would most likely say that were there a conduct issue not related to content, it would never even get as "high" as Arbcom. That person would have been dealt with long before then. I am not sure if I have a major problem in essence with Arbcom "making policy" as long as the community has input and eyes in what is going on. If there is a case that reaches Arbcom and clearly nothing is working with current rules, then I do think Arbcom can in as you say, make policy, but only if the discussion is open. (For example, the Jerusalem header is now by policy requiring an RFC to modify even though there is no policy other than an Arbcom decision saying as such. This is not such a great example, but it does show how Arbcom can create a new policy in order to deal with persistent issues that current policy may not allow to be resolved.)

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 ) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

   I don't know if it means people understand the rules better. One reason might be people aren't editing as much, another might be people quitting, etc. As for ban appeals, I understand that many aspects of the appeal is under privacy concerns, but it might be good to post on a noticeboard that Arbcom has received a ban appeal and the community can discuss. Any evidence that can be public, might do well to be so. I would also in keeping with stats and transparency just include the metrics of the appeal in a monthly scorecard.

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 ) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

   I think there is a distinction between legal WMF policies and policies of Wikipedia. We are not legal, nor WMF and I don't know if it's in the Arbcom mandate to enforce those policies that weren't given to Arbcom by the community. I don't think I would have a problem with it, I would just want to make sure it's in the Arbcom jurisdiction.

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 ) 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) reply

   Firstly, as you say, it's difficult to determine who is editing in bad faith, so where do you draw the line? Outing is outing and must be avoided, regardless of how the user edits. If it's such a bad editor, then block/ban, what is the purpose for outing?

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.

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? SilkTork ( talk) 06:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Not much in terms of powers or responsibility. They are more along the lines of people of last resort. Certain areas of Wikipedia have been given to the arbs in terms of deciding "policy" or personnel issues, such as blocking, unblocking or banning. But in terms of general every day editing, arbitrators are mostly invisible (and unneeded in day to day life.)

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)} 00:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Yes, if you are undeclared and a paid editor you should be blocked. I don't think anyone should be paid for using Wiki tools (other than plain editing), if an admin is a paid editor I think that is a huge COI. It's hard to say if someone can be a paid editor and still be an admin, I think it might be possible if that admin puts up a Chinese wall between the paid work and any other area of Wiki that the admin patrols and enforces policies.

Question from Stormy clouds

2. @ Sir Joseph:, my most meaningful and prolonged encounter with you in the course of my editing occurred over at WP:ITNC with relation to the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting, where I disagreed with your proposal to post. Your reaction was to accuse me of bias, and then use the fact that I was not yet extended-confirmated (something I have remedied since) to unfairly invalidate my vote, when it transpired that I was entitled to vote at ITN/C irrespective of the topic at hand. Now, as per your own mission statement for this election, you claim to be standing on a platform of free speech for editors. I find these two positions to be contradictory and irreconcilable. For me to consider voting for you, I would require an assurance that your behaviour towards me at ITN/C was anomalous, and not indicative of your general demeanour towards less experienced editors. Would you kindly address my concerns? Stormy clouds ( talk) 20:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   I am not running on a platform of free speech and I don't think I claimed I am. I am "running" on civility and transparency as a main goal. If I said your editing was biased, then it most likely was, at least according to me, and if you weren't able to vote based on EC status then that is a policy discussion, are non-EC people allowed to edit/vote on an item that is covered by EC, is something that is a valid discussion.

I must take further umbrage with your response, @ Sir Joseph:, as it does not adequately address my concerns. You have continued to, in the complete absence of evidence, accuse me of bias. The casual retort offered by you indicates that you did not conduct a thorough review of the incident to which I have referred, which is indicative in my view of a lack of engagement on your behalf. Your inability or unwillingness to assess evidence at this stage does not instill belief in me about your competence for the job. Moreover, the non-answer regarding your disrespect for newer editors persists as a problematic issue. The problem was not that I was not allowed to vote, as I was entirely allowed to do so at ITN/C, despite my lack of EC privileges. It was that you cited this as a reason for disregarding my opinion because you disagreed with me. Having exhausted all efforts at logically deconstructing my argument, and still facing rebukes from me, you resorted to using your seniority as a reason to demean me. It was, and remains, the only time that I have seen such an effort to shut down a newer editor who was not a SPA in ITN/C. To me, this demonstrates a lack of regard for newer editors, regardless of their devotion to the project, and an attempted abuse of perceived power. It also is an incident which is a demonstrable case of hostility and incivility, something touched upon by an IP editor in the thread. So, given your lack of engagement with my question and the fact that my personal experiences with you do not convey confidence in your ability to act admirably at ARBCOM, why should I, or any other editor for that matter, divest power to you? Therefore, I will pose the question again. Was your behaviour towards me anomalous, or can we expect further such incidents if you are elected to ARBCOM? Stormy clouds ( talk) 20:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll answer even though it's clear you're not interested. Nobody discounted your opinion. I just mentioned that it might be problematic to have an EC issue. You also unmarked when you were involved. I also said the following: " I am trying to AGF but it's hard to not think that there is a bias among people who are opposing the mention on the front page." That is my only mention of bias on that page. This reflects poorly on you, not me and that is one reason why I didn't link to it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Question from Berean Hunter

2. Viewpoint 1: Policy should be interpreted as it is written and enforced as such. If the goals are not being met then the policy should be reviewed and perhaps changed but in the meantime this is the status quo. Viewpoint 2: Policy should be interpreted for its intent over the wording. Where conflict arises between wording and intent, either do not enforce or possibly customize enforcement to try to achieve the intent per IAR. How would you describe your own viewpoint relative to the two opposing views above?
    —  Berean Hunter (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   I think there should be a distinction between policy and arbcom policy. In general, I think a policy should be enforced as written. IAR has its place but it's not a good thing when a policy can then be wishy washy enforced depending on how an administrator interprets the situation. An arbcom policy should have zero iar. Arbcom policies are more deliberate and if they mess up a policy there is a structured process to fix it, which is more correct than letting decisions be determined by the mood of an admin.

Question from Darkfrog24

2. You are one of two candidates who've said they have professional real-world experience in mediation or conflict resolution. If you feel comfortable doing so, please go into further detail. How do you believe you could apply your expertise to your Committee duties as they pertain to Wikipedia's disciplinary system, our toxic environment issues, or both? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 02:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply