Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Harry

2. Are you mad?

   Quack doodle ducks. Actually, no, I've put a lot of thought into this, hence the late entry. I do think this is a Good Idea^TM

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for standing again, nice turn that! I will vote for you, but would still be interested if you can agree with Opabinia regalis here? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Ah, civility. Well, there are three areas to Opabinia regalis' comments. 1) Can people change their minds on a hat two days later - in these circumstances, I agree with OR. Generally, sections can be hatted on inappropriately, or the hatting might not actually end the discussion and it can do more harm than good, but that's not the case, someone effectively changed their mind on the solution, making it feel like a supervote and that's not good. 2) Templates are regularly not the best way to handle civility. I don't know if I would go so far as to call it "uncivil" behaviour, but I can certainly see OR's point of view, they can be passive aggressive and can definitely wind people up. 3) Her advice to Joe was spot on.
   In summary, yes, I believe OR's comments were to the point. Whether I'd have accepted or declined, I don't know, but I think that the overall decline was the right decision.

Questions from User:Boing! said Zebedee

2. I came here to ask the obvious question, but Harry beat me to it. So instead... I am very surprised to see you running, but also very pleased (I think). I know you well enough to be confident you'd be great in the job again, but I am concerned by your recent absence - after a year of almost no edits, and then straight back into an ArbCom run - and lack of recent contributions will keep me from supporting some other candidates. Of course, that doesn't mean you haven't been aware of what's been happening. So, could you give us your take on "ArbCom 2016-2017", what you think is different from your term, what they did well over the past two years and what they did badly? That kind of thing?

   My participation gap is significant, I've been away for about a year now, and haven't been keeping up to date on all the different discussions across Wikipedia in that period. As I mentioned in my statement, I have been working, after being self employed for throughout 2016, I was offered a well paid contract. I couldn't justify spending my time on Wikipedia when a company was paying me a day rate, so I stepped back. That contract ended last month, and I've been reading around since. My initial thought was to join another content competition, but someone mentioned Arbcom to me and I've been mulling that over until this morning.
   As to the second part of the question: I finished at the end of 2013 and kept very up to date with what was going on in 2014 and fairly aware in 2015 too, you can seem my name in a number of discussions through those two periods, and my ACE candidate guides reflect that. Understandably, that leaves the question of 2016 and 2017 and I can absolutely understand why you'd want to know my opinions on that period.
   The first major change is one I'm really pleased with - that the appeals and audit sub committees were spun off or disbanded - both were roles which did not need to reside within ArbCom and had been dumped as something no one else wanted to do. A great plus point. Child protection has gone (something I really worked towards with other people) and that was easily the worst part of the role during my tenure. Cases have dropped steadily - when I was in post we turned down 40-50 cases per year and accepted about one a month. Last year there were 5 cases with 30 declined, and this year 4 cases with about 20 declined. That's meant that the committee has had time to run a decent CUOS election, something that was sorely required and even make a statement as a committee on paid editing at the beginning of this year. Personally, I think that the Arbcom taking a stand in that situation was a good thing, as a recognised group, it was more likely that they may be listened to within the WMF.
   One down side of the past two years is that of the 9 cases, 7 of them have been about individuals and the case has been named as such. I'm as much to blame here as others, as the first of those 9, I raised - but Arbitration is a horrible place when you are the case name. There is no positive outcome for the named individual. I'm not certain of the solution to that, but perceived lack of empathy is certainly one of the worst areas of the committee over the past two years.

4. If elected, would you ask for your admin bit back?

   Simply, yes. I find being able to look at deleted content to be essential in the role - but I don't intend to ask for it back before the election period is over. I'll expand more on Carrite's question

Questions from Carrite

2. Hi Dave! Your candidate statement and Boing's questions above pretty much get to the heart of what I'm concerned about — that you've been out of the loop for a year and then have dove back into the most contentious and unrelentingly labor-intensive part of The Project. Moreover, why would you do this before getting your Admin bit back? Why would you even answer this question before rushing out to get your Admin bit back, with an exclamation of "Oh, shit, I forgot!"??? Have you really thought much about taking the Shit Bucket Challenge again, or has the intimation that the workload is less crazy than when you sat on the committee previously swayed your behavior, causing you to rashly enter where sane people dare not tread?

   Admin or not, I'm still me. I'm not desperate to be on the committee again, I feel I can do some good there, but if other people are chosen ahead of me - I'm hardly going to lose sleep over it. I could have charged back on to Wikipedia when I finished my contract, requesting a pile of bits back and throwing 500 edits down in a month to remind everone that I was still a Wikipedian, but instead I made a conscious decision to run this election as a non-admin, if only to extend the debate on non-admins being elected. We've had a few serious non-admin candidates over the years, I like to think I'm a serious candidate, even if I'm not a serious "non-admin". If the community are that firmly against non-admins or people who've taken a break on Arbcom, at least future candidates will know.
   I've been thinking seriously about this candidacy since the opening of nominations - I do believe Arbcom has changed for the better and that I could be a decent part of it. Rash or not, insane or not, I thought I'd try.

4. How can ArbCom improve the transparency of its decision-making process? Is there anything that can be done to correct the current complaint that communications to the committee are not properly acknowledged and that the committee's action or lack of action about mail requests is not being adequately explained?

   There are places where transparency is good and places where it is not. A few years back, I would have said that transparency in the majority of cases was a good thing, but actually as I mentioned above, 7 of the 9 cases are about named individuals. In those cases, Arbcom has become a disciplinary committee and actually transparency is only going to increase the suffering of the individual. Now, changing that process isn't easy, but I'd be interested in seeing other ways to manage it.
   As for communications, acknowledgement of email is essential - no knowing if your thoughts have gone into a void is an unpleasant experience. I used to try to respond in a timely manner and even send follow up holding messages - it's not hard. I don't know what's currently going on behind the scenes in the mailing list, but I certainly understand the importance of good communication.

Questions from Nick

2. What do you believe are the biggest errors of judgement that the Arbitration Committee have displayed previously as a collective body. In your answer, please give examples from both your time on the committee, and from the times before being elected (or after your most recent term - in your case, WTT, I'd like to see more discussion about any perceived failings of ArbCom over the period where you've been less active). Discuss how you would have approached these issues with the benefit of hindsight, how things might have been done differently and if re-elected, how you would try to limit these errors.

   I've covered a bit of this in Boing! said Zebedee's questions - my main bug bear of the period I've been less active is the high number of cases which are focused on named individuals, 7 out of 9 cases. If that's what Arbcom has become, that's fine, but it needs to be recognised that how we handle "discipline" is lacking on Wikipedia and look at ways to improve the process. I don't have a brilliant solution to this, I'd hope where possible we'd be able to name the cases without presumption of guilt. I'd be looking for other solutions to how to handle this part of Arbcom's role in the future.
   Clearly, at least one case in 2017 was less than perfect in it's outcome as a second case was raised within 2 months of the first one. In that case, I'm afraid that there's no easy solution - we've had at least another couple of major editors who've had similar issues, and unfortunately more drastic solutions are needed, rather than softer ones.

4. What do you believe are the biggest errors of judgement that you have displayed yourself whilst acting as an arbitrator and as a functionary. Discuss how you would have approach the issues with the benefit of hindsight, how things might have been done differently and if re-elected, how you would try to limit these errors. I ask this primarily to evaluate your suitability to serve as an arbitrator, but also to provide some useful information/answers for any first time arbitrators who may be elected.

   My most significant errors in judgement have been trusting the wrong individuals - I have the unfortunately habit of believing the best in people, something that gels well into a committee with mixed opinions. However, errors of judgement as an arbitrator, my largest was letting the work get away from me and getting too involved. I became overwhelmed and effectively went inactive for the final two months of my term. With hindsight, I would take a more pragmatic view, and focussing on managing myself so that I don't get into the same jaded position.

Questions from Collect

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

   I've seen this question so many times, that I'm surprised I haven't answered it. The answer is simple, no, it shouldn't. Many users, especially those who do not see much what goes on at Arbcom believe that it does, which is one of the reasons I struggle with cases about individuals. It is unfortunate that so many cases end with sanctions, and that is due to fact that cases only come to Arbcom when nothing else works - the community is getting very good at "everything else" - far better than a little committee

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 would say, it depends on context and a number of factors, such as how the administrator became involved, the tone of their comments, the reason behind their comments, the past history between the two. I can easily imagine situations where I would answer yes or no to that question.

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. Time scales can be fluffy on Arbcom cases, if an editor asks for an extension due to being unavailable, I would generally consider it. It would depend on how big a role they played in the case, how long they would be unavailable and so on.
   b. Space is generally given to rebut evidence at the bottom of the workshop page, though it is often not used. Time can be considered as per a), though it's worth noting that deadlines do help focus the mind and stop prolonging the unpleasantness in those circumstances.
   c. If there's last minute evidence, there's still time and space in the workshop, in the "analysis of evidence section". Hopefully that is sufficient, but again, asking for more time or space in the evidence section is not unreasonable.
   d. That's a difficult one as for the most part, the case progression should be on the case pages - there are the obvious circumstances, information from past cases in Arbcom's purview (such as repeat behaviour, not raised by others), information submitted privately, information that is found after a small number of clicks from the evidence/workshop phase (eg, linked from an ANI thread that is linked in the case) are all reasonable circumstances. The grey area is in patterns of behaviour - if it's discussed but not well evidenced, I could understand an arbitrator looking further to decide if the pattern is real.

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 think that the committee has a remit, and should endeavour to stick to it. Everything you've said is right, of course, but there are other ways to handle content disputes on Wikipedia, and I'm loathed to allow a few individuals who don't have experience in the area to make decisions on content over and above consensus. Of course there are subtleties to that argument, interpretations and ways to help content discussions along. As for policy, that's just something that almost everyone agrees on / accepts they should do - so if Arbcom's interpretation influences what people do, then yes, it does effectively make policy. The committee should endeavour not to do that, as the community are generally pretty good at doing so.

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

   There are fewer cases for a number of reasons - largely that the community is dealing with things earlier, but also that slow down in the behind the scenes discussion - I don't think "basic rules" are better understood than they were before. That said, this question is about ban appeals. The problem is that no one wants to deal with them, especially the repeated ones. After talk pages are closed and UTRS stops listening, we used to have them sent to BASC because no one wanted to keep hearing about them on the main list. The worst bit is that, some appeals are reasonable and should be let through - we've let some people back after 3-4 years that would have been thought gone forever - so it is a necessary outlet. No, the committee doesn't handle it well - and I'd really love to see it handled else where.

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

   The terms of use are definitely a policy by my definition of policy above, but I'm not certain that it's really arbcom's role to enforce. In circumstances that the community consensus matches the ToU, that's simple, Arbcom can follow community consensus and everyone's happy. Where it doesn't match, I approve of statements like the one made in January on paid editing. Then there's areas like child protection - that's in the ToU, but I don't want it near Arbcom's plate. But, when it comes down to it, if someone is breaking the ToU, but not breaking any other policy, I would accept that Arbcom might be a place to turn.

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

   There's two sides to the outing coin. On the one hand, the anonymity given by pseudonyms can allow a freedom of expression to write an encyclopedia without personal repercussions. On the other hand, the same. Anonymity leads to articles on topics people refuse to write about. It also gives people a shield to be unpleasant without thinking twice. I understand why people want to "out" the latter. Is that acceptable? No, bad faith editor or not, vigilante outing is not helpful. The one place that outing appears to have become acceptable is Conflicts of Interest. I don't like it, but it is what it is.

Question from Banedon

2. There's currently a fairly-new case request [1]. Would you accept the case, and if so, what scope would you set? More contentiously, would you incline towards desysopping Salvidrim, or not? I realize I'm asking this question before the evidence of the case is presented, or even before it's accepted, which makes getting the facts correct harder. That's why I am only asking for first impressions, and will not hold it against you if your first impressions are based on incorrect assumptions. If you prefer, you can say something like "I assume [these things happened]. Based on these not-necessarily correct assumptions, I will do [this]".)

   Yes, I would accept the case request. I would accept almost any case request regarding perceived administrator misbehaviour, if it cannot be immediately dismissed. Wikipedia has a problem with how admins are perceived, leading to an unpleasant RfA system. I like to believe that the Arbcom system of checks and balances works, and that means that cases on admin misbehaviour have to be taken seriously. As to the outcome, I'm not going to answer that because there's a case that needs to be heard.

4. Do you believe that an editor's positive contributions should matter in a case before the arbitration committee? For example, suppose Alice and Bob end up in an arbitration case in which both editors violated WP:BATTLEGROUND equally. Alice has written 100 FAs and 200 GAs, while Bob only registered an account a month ago. Would you sanction them both equally? If so, do you believe that content creation does not matter in a conduct dispute? If not, which editor would you sanction more, and why?

   We chose to have named user accounts on this wiki, we chose to monitor how much work people do, how much effort they put in. We can't then pretend that everyone is the same. I spend 3 years bringing my first FA up to scratch, and months bringing the second. Good Articles take hours of research and writing, and that's not including the years and years of writing skill people have built up prior to Wikipedia. Writing good quality content counts for something.
   That's not to say content creators can run around being obnoxious, nor that they can claim ownership of their work. They may need to be sanctioned, and sometimes it's up to Arbcom to do it. If it's got that far, their content creation won't save them.
   Of course, the hypothetical doesn't add up - "both editors violated BATTLEGROUND equally", I'd love to see that judged. What's more, the community would be able to handle the case, it's not likely to end up at Arbcom.

Questions from Kudpung

(Short answers really will do, Dave, but just a tad more than 'yes' or 'no'. If the questions are not clear, I'll gladly elucidate)

2. Some people are running on a platform of intention to reform the Arbitration Committee. It's possible that each individual's Arbcom tenure is too short to really get anything done. Do you consider change to be a slow, organic process, or do you believe it can be forced through from within?

   You can't force things through from the inside of Arbcom. It's set up to make change as gradual (or at least as tedious) as possible. However, you can make small changes, you can influence how the committee works. Reform won't happen, improvement will.

4. Each year there is a pre-election RfC to see if any changes to the process are appropriate. The issue of the community questions was mentioned but without any consensus being met. Do you believe that asking candidates to categorise on the work of a specifically named user or candidate is appropriate in this kind of election?

   I think that since the role is so large, you have to accept that people are going to want to talk to you about it and ask questions. If you're not willing to answer questions, then you're not fit to be on Arbcom. If you can't handle certain types of question, like the one you mention, then you're going to struggle on Arbcom.

6. Each year there is a pre-election RfC to see if any changes to the process are appropriate. The issue of the Voter Guides was mentioned but with out any consensus being met. Unlike RfA where a candidate and/or their nominator can refute any unjust claims made by voters, candidates for Arbcom do not have the same opportunity to address totally disingenuous questions and voter guides. The hypothetical question: How appropriate do you believe it would be for an admin with a self-admitted reputation for aggressive behaviour to make an unprovoked PA at a fellow admin and threaten to disrupt their bid for Arbcom or RfA in the event they might (only might) make one?

   I've been involved in voter guides from both sides. One editor will happily claim that I didn't get elected in 2011 because of his voter guide, and since I missed out by about 1%, I can understand that point of view. My 2015 voter guide so upset one of the candidates that it ended in an Arbcom case. Again, if you can't handle people talking about you, especially negatively, you shouldn't be on Arbcom. I can't say I handle it brilliantly, but I acknowledge and discuss head on.
   As to the hypothetical, threats are not helpful in any circumstances, and I'd want to look into that further and have words with the admin in question.

Questions from Rschen7754

2. In User:Worm That Turned/ACE2015, over a year after you left the Committee, you wrote: Don't run. Having had some distance from Arbcom for a year, I'm finally getting over how unpleasant a place it was. The volume of emails (~3Gb over 2 years including moderation emails), the impossibility of getting anything done (herding cats), the petty bickering, the wasted time... it's just not worth it. I feel I achieved what I wanted to while on Arbcom, but I do wonder if it was worth the cost. I'm still bumbling along and haven't had the re-surge of energy for this place. Do you feel the same way now? What would you say to reassure voters that you will be able to remain active for the majority of an additional 2 year term? -- Rs chen 7754 07:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Good quote that. It was designed to put people off if they were on the fence and ensure that people knew what they were getting into. I hope people read it before running - and it's still true, save for the last line. I'd say my energy has returned, my interest in reading what's going on, understanding where problems are and working out how to fix them, along side general encyclopedic work, all seems good to me. Is Arbcom going to be worth it, I don't know. I predicted it would be gone within the next couple of years - I won't complain if that happens.
   As for re-assuring voters about my commitment, well, I stuck with Arbcom for the full term, despite considering walking away. I took breaks, but made it clear that I was taking one, the reason why and the expected duration (even if only to myself), and I returned at the end. My absence over the past year has been due to another project which I gave my full time to, that project is over.

Questions 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) 15:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Hi SilkTork, good to see you still about. I don't believe there's anything that Arbcom can do that the community could not, were the community willing. The list of things that Arbcom "does" is pretty short - final binding decision maker on contentious topics, something that the community is getting better and better at. Removal of Admin rights (I've advocated for years that there should be a community process for this), handle private information and appointing new CUOS members - OTRS and Functionaries could handle this and finally ban appeals. All could be handled within the community, but at the moment, we don't have robust community processes to manage them. I've complained above about Arbcom processes for dealing with individuals, but they are head and shoulders above the old RfC/U process.
   What it boils down to - there's stuff that the committee does that the rest of the community doesn't - not can't, but doesn't. It allows the community to get on with more important stuff, like building an encyclopedia...

4. Hi Dave. I was really pleased to see your name, and even considered, briefly, putting my name down - as you say, reasons for being reluctant to work again on the committee have diminished. Anyway. The question. You are an obvious candidate for the committee, but you are running on a non-admin platform that will impact on your support. You are not a non-admin, so any future opening up of the committee to non-admins when (if) you get in is somewhat illusionary, and realistically will unlikely assist in the debate. If anything, it may cloud the issue by sidetracking the debate into your actual admin status. Additionally, because you are making this stance, some people may feel you are grandstanding, others may question your judgement, and others may simply not support you because they don't support non-admins, and will say that technically you are a non-admin (or maybe they won't even be aware that you are, they'll just hover their mouse over your name and see the absence of the sysop tag). You must have considered all this when making the decision not to pick up your tools before nomination, and felt that making a statement about the community being reluctant to accept non-admins on the committee was more important than being on the committee itself. Could you expand more fully on your thinking on this issue?

   I've always believe that Wikipedia tools should be given on an "as needed" basis and should be easy come-easy go. I know that's not the reality, but on a personal level, that's my belief. As such, when I was particularly involved in the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia, I held a number of tools. As I stopped using each, I returned them. Eventually, when I realised that I was going to be absent for a while, I handed in my admin bit - the universal toolbelt. That was 6 months ago or so. There was no cloud, no excessive inactivity, I could go to WP:BN tomorrow and ask for those bits back. In other words, I am, for all intents and purposes an admin. At least 2 user guides have pointed that out.
   Yet, I'm also not an admin. I don't hold the tools at present. We've had circumstances like this before, where one tool is expected before another (for example, a non-admin on AUSC) and it all worked out fine. I like to think that I exemplify all the traits of a good admin, without actually being one - and I would like to show that such a person could pass an Arbcom Election without holding the tools. If I'm really lucky, people will think about why they only want admins on Arbcom, what makes an admin "special" - I can tell you now, having a flag on a user account doesn't make you special.
   I may lose votes for this stance. Some voters might not think about their choice and just put me down as a no because I don't have the flag. Others might think I'm "grandstanding" or being WP:POINTy. I can live with that. When it comes down to it, I believe in change, and if I lose the election due to my wish for change and have to put up with not being on Arbcom, I'm sure that's a sacrifice I can make. I know this isn't going to extend the debate far, I've already said I will pick up the tools because I think you need them for the job, but I believe it's worth it. It's a person that people should be electing, not a badge.

Question from Biblioworm

2. On this page, I have drafted some detailed proposals (already written as formal motions) which would improve and streamline 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.

   Hi Biblioworm, that's an in depth question and deserves an in depth answer. Please excuse the delay, it might take a little while. Thanks for waiting, and thanks also for taking the time to put together well formed proposals. I'll take each one in turn.
   Eliminating ArbCom's responsibility for certain matters:
   I agree with the underlying concept and would have no problem supporting privacy issues moving elsewhere, though I believe it is out of date in parts (for example, child protection is already handled elsewhere). However, this should be the last step, on the close of the Arbitration Committee. As long as there is an elected group of trusted individuals, handling information unsuitable for public discussion is a good idea. Furthermore, there is nothing in the proposal which explains who would handle that sort of information instead - I assume the "functionaries" as a group, but that would need to be agreed by the functionaries and the wider community before any motion like this could be passed. With regard to the CUOS inactivity / removal, again this could be passed to the functionaries or a new subset of them in combination with non-functionary members - but since we can't get a decent RFA process, I cannot see how we could make a decent RfCUOS process. Take a look at how many RfB's have run and past in the past 5 years to get an idea of my concerns. Again, this sort of thing would need to be discussed and agreed before moving the responsibilty.
   Streamlining the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
   Auditing - I would rather that there were more places that people could turn with a complaint about functionaries, rather than less. The Arbcom process does not preclude the Ombudsman process, and since there is a difference between global and local CUOS policies, It's a good idea to keep that in house.
   Opening of preceedings - The committee's glacial speed has some benefits - it allows a cooling off period, allows clarity of opinion, people to re-read what's been said and reflect, which can allow for better evidence. Appointing an individual to make decisions on scope or draft right at the beginning may expedite the process, but actually, I'm not sure that we would want things to faster at the opening point. I also don't like the idea of a firm scope that can only be altered by motion, but I do like the idea that scope should be formed as a question or series there of. I'll be keeping that one in my head and may be using it in the future.
   Target timetable for proceedings - again, the glacial speed has benefits. I like that there's a gap at the end of the evidence phase before the end of the Workshop. I'd be happy if they ran for 2 weeks each, with a week overlap, but 1 week total, running simultaneously is not sufficient. It doesn't allow for participant breaks, or the benefits of the speed mentioned above.
   Submission of Evidence - I see little benefit of allowing only named parties in the manner you suggest. Thinking of the large cases which are more about conduct in difficult areas, there are many people who hold an interest but would not fit as named parties. Effectively, you're limiting what the committee has to work with, and I don't see that as a positive.
   Editor participation - I don't have significant problems with this section, but I also don't have problems with the current procedures in that area. I'd need to give further consideration to the benefits of one system above the other if such a proposal was brought forward.
   Due process in Arbitration Enforcement:
   I quite like these proposals. I like the idea of slowing AE down to prevent rash decisions. My only concern is the idea of forcing at least two admins to be involved - In theory administrators should have good judgement and just because only one has replied doesn't mean their opinion is wrong. Given the slow down of the encyclopedia, I don't like the idea of making an area dependent on an increase of admins.
   Allowing motions by the community:
   - I'm on board with the idea of community motions. I like the idea of them being endorsed or dismissed. I think that the "recycled" part needs to be tightened up - you handling the idea that someone or some people will keep adding the same motion, but you're not handling the idea that the same motion might be needed due to a change in circumstances. I suppose allowing arbitrators to re-propose helps that though. My concern is how this would be used though - what community motions are we missing that couldn't be passed to Arbitrators to put forward? What's more, the community already has the ability to put forward statements in requests for comment. I like it in principle, if we focus it on "Arbitration cases" and talk about possible uses.
   
   I hope that helps Biblioworm. I appreciate the attempts at reform and you've definitely got some good ideas in there. I'm not sure there are any I'd support off the bat, but the concepts are good and I could seem some adopted in the future.

Question from Usernamekiran

2. Hi. You are the only editor other than SarekOfVulcan, that I am not familiar with. So I would like to ask, in your opinion what can be considered as "conflict of interest"? (Kindly read my second question before answering this.) —usernamekiran (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   I've read the second question, and I'm going to answer this one first. I think you're getting confused between "Conflict of Interest", WP:COI and WP:INVOLVED. A "Conflict of Interest" is where two separate relationships mean that you are unable a fair (or perceived to be fair) decision - That's a real, tangible concept. WP:COI is the "Wikipedia" version of the term, which is where a relationship "external" from Wikipedia could prevent you from editing from a Neutral Point of View. WP:INVOLVED is where an administrator could have a bias because they have previously been involved with respect to a situation on Wikipedia.

4. This is a follow-up question for the previous one. This one might look odd, or a little goofy/humorous; but kindly try to take this seriously. Given user Kudpung, and TonyBallioni's heavy involvement in NPP/R project, do you think it can be considered as COI if they process (approve/decline) a request for NPR user-right at WP:PERM? (Update:This is a hypothetical situation where Kudpung has not retired from co-ordinating NPP/R.) —usernamekiran (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Not a COI, no. Being heavily involved in NPP/R would not lead to a conflict of interest in processing NPR user-rights - completely wrong term. The one that might make more sense would be "WP:INVOLVED" - So, I would expect the two to shy away from making admin decisions in the NPP/R area, such as closing discussions or controlling the area with the use of admin tools. However, I don't believe that the "involvement" would stretch to adding the user-right, which is a decision based on the user's history and area's requirements rather than the area. Does that make sense?

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)} 23:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply

   Hi Smallbones. Paid editing was always going to become a bigger and bigger bugbear on Wikipedia, as there will be always people on both sides of the debate. On the one hand it goes against the ethos of Wikipedia where hundreds of thousands of volunteers have spent years working on building an encyclopedia to provide free knowledge to mankind. On the other, we have a free to edit resource which is seen by millions of people a day, which will never be complete and can be slow at writing well with regard to people or companies. Editing for pay is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and trying to find a solution which allows control of that paid editing is not an easy task.
   I stated above that ToU are extensions de facto policy - policy documents are descriptive documentation of what practically everyone does - therefore that can be enforced as with any other policy though me doing it is unlikely, it's not how I used my admin tools. I think if there's a chance of a good editor, we should be trying not to block - just as I believe for all other situations. Now, trying not to block could come down to a decent warning, it might need a little more than that, but someone stubbornly refusing the declare their conflict of interest and carrying on should be blocked. I cannot see a reason that paid use of administrator tools is acceptable - admin tools are given on "trust" and the community definitely hasn't got to the point where they trust paid editors. Yes, admins can do paid with respect to the project and maintain neutrality - I would include all WMF staff and Wikipedians-in-residence in this category - but in any situation where it is attempted, the individual should go above and beyond to ensure the perception of propriety. Finally, I've always found COIN to be a useful board, though it does meet my mental "drama" threshold due to the way some discussions there unfold.

Question from Fæ

2. Many people would think that people trusted with checkuser access should be held accountable to the highest possible standard. If a user has been found to breach the community's trust by misusing checkuser data, do you believe that withdrawing check user access is sufficient action, or should a response commensurate with the misuse be in order, such as an ARBCOM permanent ban from sysop rights or request that their accounts be WMF Office blocked for misusing the privileged data?

   As always, it depends on the circumstances, making this sort of question very difficult to answer. Misuse of checkuser data should of course lead to instant removal of the checkuser tool and generally the misuse would follow to a breach of trust that would mean the user should be de-sysopped too. Banning, I would generally say not - and of course, Arbcom has no say over WMF office blocks. As for an Arbcom "permenant ban from sysop rights" - that doesn't fit with the consensus can change model - if the user can pass an RfA, I expect that the community will have stated that the trust has been restored and that they can have their user right back. Again, I'm speaking in generalities and any case would have to be looked at on it's merits - it's quite plausible that a fix term or indefinite block is required.

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} 02:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   Hi Nuro Dragonfly, this sort of question comes up a lot, not so much from an Arbcom perspective, but when I spend my time helping editors and prospective editors. Wikipedia is designed to be the sum of knowledge, not the complete index of all knowledge. As it is constantly being updated, there really needs to be a line drawn somewhere on what should be included and what shouldn't. Without that line in the sand, anyone could make up anything and it would go in (that happens enough as it is!), or anyone who decides to be a musician and starts a garage band could have a Wikipedia article. That makes for an impossible task to curate and takes away from the articles about topics people want to actually read about.
   The line in the sand was decided very early on, as the Wikipedia concept of "notability", which Wikipedia has defined to mean that is covered by "multiple sources independent of the topic" (there are some shortcuts in WP:NMUSIC, but still, multiple sources is the best interpretation). I understand that doesn't meet your goal for Wikipedia - a complete index of musicians and bands - which is a noble goal, it just doesn't fit with what Wikipedia is about.
   Of course, maybe I'm mis-interpreting your question, and these artists meet the notability criteria. If that's the case, evidencing that is important, which is why you need to cite your sources and show where the information has come from. I'll also drop you a line on your talk page later to chat further and see if I can be of any more help. Worm^TT( talk) 08:19, 6 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) 03:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

   Policy is the written version of what actually happens where the community consensus is very strong. Which means I've closer to the latter view point - it cannot cover every situation and therefore needs interpretation based on understanding of the reason behind the policy. That's exactly what IAR is for, the important things is to "improve the encyclopedia" not get hung up minutiae of the rule book, which is excessive and cannot be expected to be read before editing. Also, let's not forget that "enforce" can be as simple as discussion with interested parties - it doesn't need to be charging in with sanctions, agreement is a far better solution than conflict