Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Courcelles

Hi, I'm Courcelles, I've been here for a few years, an admin for about 4, and I was an arb for the 2011-2013 term.

I'll start by saving I haven't been very active this year. When I rotated off the committee last year, I was effectively going blind. This year, I've undergone two surgeries to fix that, neither of which went particularly smoothly. At least I now have one fully-functional eye!

ArbCom does a lot of important things, some of which it does well, some of which it doesn't. Currently, the system pretty much lets 12 of the 14 arbs forget cases even exist for the (too long) they sit at the evidence and workshop phases. The two subcommittees need a complete rethink; Beeblebrox's proposal isn't perfect, but BASC needs to be reformed, and I still think that we need to go back to letting the community pick their "community" members of the AUSC. The committee needs to appoint more functionaries ASAP, the lack of an appointment round this year and normal attrition has led to a few people doing tons of work.

I think I would be a better arbitrator than I was three years ago. I'm a mellower guy in real life, and I know what I'm asking to jump into here, something that I had no clue about when I was elected in 2011 I'm willing to do the job for another two years, so I'm asking for your votes.

This hasn't changed from three years ago, so in means of standard disclosure, I have a travelling account User:Courcelles is travelling a bot account I've registered User:Courcelles Bot but have never used, a test account, User:Courcelles (ACIP test) and a doppelganger, User:CourcelIes is travelling. This account was once renamed by a bureaucrat, but I've never used any other account than these. As a CU/OS, I'm identified already to the Foundation, and do and will continue to comply with the non-public data access criteria.

• Courcelles (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 2014 candidate: Courcelles 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=}}

NB:I'm packed up and leaving for Thanksgiving. Snowstorm willing, I'll be back sometime Friday or Saturday. Courcelles 19:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Of course there can be no need for sanctions in a case, I'm fairly sure Arbcom has done this in the past; passed a few principles, given some reminders or guidance, and closed the book. A case request only lays out that there is some controversy to look into, if after looking into the matter more deeply, it turns out sanctions will serve no purpose, then shut it down. Courcelles 05:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?

   When you sanction someone, you should be able to point to evidence of where they've done something wrong -- even if such evidence is private, that there IS evidence should not be. "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" is not a valid arbitration strategy. An AN/I that didn't support a topic ban is interesting, but not a bar for Arbcom imposing one if the evidence warrants it. If there are no specific findings, then, well, we would assume the evidence doesn't warrant it, and therefore it shouldn't happen.

6. Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?

   None, not reading the case carefully is more akin to playing bingo than arbitrating.

8. "Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?

   For the most part, the principles that are the first of a three-part Arbcom decision should not change; and they don't, as the Committee is fond of just copying them in from prior decisions. But in terms of what remedies are imposed, stare decisis is a bad idea, as part of the arbitration process needs to be the flexibility to realize that a) all cases are not the same, b) all circumstances are not the same, and c) Arbcom is not a court of law. That's an important thing, the last one. The job of arbcom is to make the encyclopaedia better, not to hand out punishment, and I think a system of formal stare decisis would get in the way of that.

10. Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?

    The Five Pillars aren't really what I'd call an essay, I'd almost call them our most fundamental values. They cover, succinctly, what we are, why we're here, what we are doing, and how we should behave. Every principle the Committee passes needs to be mindful of all those fundamentals.

12. Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?

    The primacy of BLP is pretty much a settled matter, it sits right up there at the top in terms of how we should be making decisions.

14. How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?

    I would define a faction as a group who seems to be editing in a common mindset and whose behaviour is problematic. I think that factions, even unorganised, can control certain articles for short periods, but such is often short lived when the wider community is made aware of what is going on. We have policies against such behaviours as POV pushing, meatpuppetry, misusing sources, etc. that are robust enough, when the wider community notices there is a problem. I don't think you can direct sanctions at a "faction", because you need to find evidence of misconduct by individual editors -- it is editors who engage in behaviour issues, not ideas. Once you identify the editors who are behaving poorly, if any, and remedy that, the Committee usually places discretionary sanctions on the area to allow admins at AE to quickly resolve any new behaviour issues that result.

    Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: Sorry about the last one, I just got too tired last night ebfore I was able to compose an answer to it. Courcelles 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NP - I am always willing to emend stuff. Moves you up to a nice "Honourable Mention" by the way.

2. Thanks for being ready to continue your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you had never heard the name of the user in question, how would you comment in this case? My so far favourite comment has four words ;)

   Okay, this one is interesting. For an AE request, the admins need to answer two critical questions. 1) Is there an actual violation of a remedy here? and 2) Does the violation, if it exists, merit sanction. So, we have to compare the reported violation to the actual remedy. The remedy prohibits "adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes". Gah, that could have been in bulletpoint form and been clearer, couldn't it have? So, basically, this person cannot a) add an infobox, b) discuss adding an infobox, or c) discuss the removal of one. The edit is not discussion, so only option a could apply. So, the diff in question. I see the changing of a free-form infobox, one that was already there, to one that uses an infobox template. This is not a violation of the remedy (or in any way disruptive whatsoever), so I would vote to decline the request for any action to be taken. Courcelles 21:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?

   Civility is a pillar of our encyclopaedia; and a collegial atmosphere is necessary for it to function well. We're not where we should be, and fixing that is a matter of the community growing stronger. We generally can agree on what is and what is not NPOV editing, however in the realm of text-only communication, defining civility is difficult. We mostly agree that blatant personal attacks are not acceptable, and those are not that difficult to spot. Where we have a significant gap in community opinion is the gap between perfectly friendly and "go away, asshole". We need to strive for civility in all our interactions, but I'm not of the mind that the best way to do that is to hand out blocks.

4. Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?

   The gender gap is a problem on Wikipedia, and it does create a systematic bias in our coverage. If it can be fixed by changes in policy, then the community must be the ones to propose and adopt that policy; all the Committee can do is try to improve the standard of conduct on the project. There isn't any place for discriminatory conduct on Wikipedia, and such is already sanctionable, as Arbcom has already said in several cases. Fixing systematic problems, like the gender gap, rather than particular incidents or patterns of misconduct is just not something ArbCom is able to handle either feasibly or within its mandate.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to dispute the assertion that arbcom decides cases in private deliberation here. Arbcom-l traffic that relates to cases is quite frequently of the herding cats variety, "For all the saints, go vote on that PD tonight!" or "I added a new remedy to case Foo, please come back?" or "We're at three votes to close, here's a list of who missed voting on what". Could this be done on-wiki now that we have notifications? Perhaps, but people get a lot of them, and email is a lot more direct. Sometimes it looks like something funny is going on when five people swoop from seemingly nowhere to vote on something, but they all just got emails poking them at the same time; and a lot of people leave their email client open all the time. The only other things I've seen that would be prohibited by your pledge (I.e. case discussion not involving private information) is a request for a sanity check. Even though I think that things should be done on-wiki, I won't make the proposed pledge, because anyone making it in isolation from the rest of the Committee's membership would be hamstrung, unable to give their input in the conversation due to the pledge, and yet unable to unilaterally move it on-wiki due to the confidentiality of the mailing lists that are proscribed by the arbitration policy. It needs a communal rethink and decision to change, not individual pledges. Courcelles 20:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

2. What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?

   I think, like most of us, I read Wikipedia lots before I ever processed that this place you looked everything up was written by volunteers. Wikipedia was fun. Still is, when you get through all the other necessary distractions. When I'm knee-deep in a project, I tend to work on that, when not, I more or less wander around and help where I see help is needed.

4. What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?

   I've had experience with consensus building and determination throughout my time on Wikipedia. What I've learned is that passionate people on both sides are usually acting in good faith, and that a lot of the issues don't really have a single right answer. You can never please everyone, but if you are willing to take the time to have a patient, calm conversation, you can usually get to a place where everyone at least understands where the other parties is coming from, and that can be at least enough to calm down things, even though they don't agree.

6. Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?

   I was an arb for two years, and what I learned is that the cases with only a few parties are much easier to keep on track, and on schedule, than the sprawling ones. Not surprising, really. A case was opened yesterday, a case about the conduct of an administrator. Its important, it needs to be decided carefully, but look at the default timeline. Opened 19 Nov. Evidence closes 3 Dec, Workshop closes 10 Dec, PD targeted at 17 Dec. This isn't a 30 party sprawler, either. 2 parties. Two. Why do we use a fixed two week, one week, one week progression, and then, often PDs are late? Why not a timeline that starts where the drafting arbs think is reasonable for the case, and then lengthen it if the parties ask? I'm not convinced the workshop is working as currently designed, something I would like to see considered is the drafting arbitrators posting their "finished" PD's 48 hours before the arbs start voting on them, because right now, too many things are getting posted and critiqued on the PD talk page after three or four arbs have already voted on them, and they are much easier to fix before the vote stands at 2-2. This would also have the benefit of non-drafting arbs being able to add new things, or alternatives before voting, as getting everyone back to vote on new additions is often an exercise in cat herding.

8. Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?

   I think that when you can actually get the two working together, amazing things can happen. he two groups have a tendency to talk past each other, with subject experts looking at their field, and general editors looking at the norms of Wikipedia. Talking past each other leads to ANIs, drama, and subject experts deciding they have better things to do with their time. People that are subject experts are, I think, open to respecting the ways we do things here, but we need to be better at explaining and guiding; just as someone needs to be taught quantum mechanics, so they need taught how to edit Wikipedia.

10. In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?

    The result of the status quo is that RFA can't promote admins without candidates being nearly flawless. The sysop/crat flags are the only switch the community can flip, that it can't unflip. It's silly, and it needs to change.

12. Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?

    I don't think it would have much effect, because I've already been there, the same issues existed three years ago.

14. What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?

    I've been operating under some version of those policies since 2011 as an auditor, arbitrator, CU, and OS so I'm familiar with all of them. One thing I've wondered from time to time is why CU data expires from the system in 90 days, yet oversighted edits stick around forever, but that's another discussion, and I'm not a software engineer. I know we have the two bodies (AUSC and the ombuds) to oversee how private information is accessed and used, but the AUSC is a paper kitten (paper tigers at least have theoretical power!) and the OC has a lot of ground to cover. Both, in my opinion, have the weakness of only looking at things when someone complains, which is somewhat ironic given the logs are private. I think the operational users (CU, OS, Stewards) do the best they can, but the system to ensure they are staying within bounds is lacking.

16. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?

    I think, if you take a historical view of the Committee, you'd find that cases have grown much more complicated over time; what took a case years ago is often now handled at ANI, or sometimes even by a single admin. The least complicated cases left are some those that are brought regarding single administrators. This can, and should change; but it can't be changed by Arbcom. The community needs to design some form of usable desysopping proposal. I think Arbcom currently hears a decent amount of block/ban appeals that could be handled elsewhere. There's plenty of work that is within Arbcom's remit that it doesn't need to look for work outside scope.

Thank you. Rschen7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?

   Determining whether a source is reliable or not is not, and never should be, the job of the Arbitration Committee. That decision must be made by the community, and there are venues suited to handling it, i.e. the RSN. If someone edits in contrary to a consensus that a source is unreliable, now, that is a behaviour problem that can be, if other attempts to resolve the situation fail, within ArbCom's remit. But the question isn't the reliability of the source(s) in question, it is the question of editing against consensus that ArbCom would look into.

4. When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?

   ArbCom does not decide content disputes; if it ever tried, it would fall flat on its face, I am sure. However, there are certain allegations of behaviour that is within ArbCom's remit that cannot be evaluated without some investigation of the content and the sources. (The best examples would be either POV-pushing or the misrepresentation of sources, both of which ArbCom has sanctioned editors for in the past.) The key is to evaluate the behaviour, not the content.

6. How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?

   Honestly, these last two are hopelessly vague questions. They sound like you are trying to paraphrase some actual dispute, but without any specifics. There are too many different reasons these removals might be happening, quite a good many perfectly legitimate to give any meaningful answer here. Selective use of sources can create original research concerns, or there could be nothing wrong at all, and we have good noticeboards, again usually RSN, to sort these things out rather than ArbCom.

8. If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?

   Again, hopelessly vague. Sources have to be evaluated independently, and just because a source was sponsored is not prima facie evidence that it isn't reliable or high-quality, though I do tend to think such sources should be examined closely for bias. (Also, remember, sources frequently are reliable for one thing, but not for another, even ones we might instinctively think are of the highest quality. The New York Times is great at a great many things, but we should likely look elsewhere when discussing the finer mathematics of time dilation...) To get back to the question, if, within a topic area, RSN had problems with the proposed source, and agreed its COI was a problem, and then there are other COI concerns with the editor who proposed said source, it would be fair to consider the source with the other evidence.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?

   Arbitrators don't make policy, and the committee shouldn't be in the business of doing it. Administrators have long been expected to do whatever they think is reasonably necessary to enforce the BLP policy. I would say this gave admins the tools to enforce the policy that already existed, instead of creating policy from whole cloth. This is, by far, the broadest application of the standard DS's, but the absolute imperative that BLP be complied with, in my opinion, justified the decision.

4. Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?

   Yes, I do, I know the amount of sheer reading, thinking, and communicating the job requires.

6. Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?

   No, I would not support such a move. The benefit of electing 15 arbs is that there is a wide range of views and experiences to draw from, and limiting a case to as few as five arbitrators would undercut the advantages of having a diverse committee.

8. Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?

   I think so, I'd like to think I'm fairly even-tempered.

10. Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?

    This one is a bit of a sticky wicket -- to even accept a case you have to be persuaded there is something wrong to investigate. In general, I agree with not announcing any opinions at the request stage of a proceeding. Adding parties to a case is something the drafting arbs do when they feel it is necessary, largely when they have concerns that a FoF or remedy may be proposed an on editor who is not listed in the parties. Most of the times I've seen this happen, there was already evidence submitted concerning the editor who was added. These addings are proper, and should be done as soon as reasonably possible, to ensure the added party has time to gather their own evidence, and otherwise participate in the case. A drafting arb should not go around adding parties without good reason, though.

12. The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?

    I don't think I would bring any cases in my term, but any editor has the right to bring a case before the committee, and waiving that right could lead to unforeseen consequences; an arbitrator, is, first and foremost, an editor.

14. As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?

    If there is evidence that "a significant number of checkusers" are making {{checkuserblock}}s with no private information being relevant, you need to present it to someone -- AUSC, ArbCom, or the Ombudsman Commission. Just because there is no indication beyond the template of private information being used, doesn't mean there isn't.

16. The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?

    The highest purpose of an Arbitration Committee decision is to ensure the proper functioning and good health of the encyclopaedia. Decisions need to be just and not capricious, but this is one of the differences between ArbCom and a court of law; justice is the highest virtue in a courtroom. I believe in the Committee doing what is fair in that people need to be heard, people facing sanction need to know what they did wrong, people need to be given a chance to defend themselves, and that other things. What I think the quote means, and the context in which I would agree with it, is that when it absolutely gets to the really tough spots, the good of the encyclopaedia is our ultimate goal. And what that looks like, well, varies to reasonable people sometimes.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

2. If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?

   There's no way to give a fair grade without knowing what they've been dealing with behind the scenes. One thing I've liked this year is some willingness to loosen years old restrictions, in at least two cases to let someone under a broader topic ban attempt to focus on a certain, less controversial area without fear of nudging up on their bans. The biggest failure this term, though, is leaving the functionary team in a lurch, undermanned and without much in way of leadership. There needed to be an effort made to recruit and appoint more CU's and OS's this year, as the evidence was there that too few hands were carrying the load.

4. The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?

   I think I covered a lot of this ground in Rschen's third question above. Basically, we need to get off the rigid formula, and set timescales that actually fit each case's level of complexity and number of parties. We need to look at whether the workshop, as currently designed, is worth the week it occupies in the calendar, and we need to be bringing PD's on-wiki before voting on them.

6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?

   I wish we all just had a little more patience and empathy. If we did, we wouldn't spend so much time on disputes, and we could spend a lot more time working on what the readers see.

@Carrite: Interesting questions, thanks. Courcelles 22:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!

   Well, I would add a clause in the first one that you cannot release an email of your own that essentially tells the content of another person's email, even without quoting. (Imagine an email that says, "Arb X, regarding issue Y, you're wrong, and here's why", you've given away the contents of that email without actually quoting them. I would also add an explicit mechanism that emails may be shared with WMF staff when necessary. Other than that, it is a good starting point to codify what is now an ah hoc process that arbitrators know, but no one has ever written down.

2. You mentioned that "Civility is a pillar of our encyclopaedia; and a collegial atmosphere is necessary for it to function well." While many editors would agree with this in principle, altering their own behaviour to achieve it is another matter. So, what changes in your own behaviour have you effected in order to achieve a more collegial atmosphere?

   I can't really answer that question, while I always strive to learn and grow from experience, your question requires the assumption that I have a history of incivility that needed to change.

4. It was not my intent to imply a history of incivility. When it comes to collegiality, what experiences have informed you, what have you learned, and how have you grown over time?

2. You say in your candidate statement you have had no accounts other than this and several alts. How do you square this claim with the fact that you knew all about vandalism warning templates before you even had 50 edits? --Ancientway (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you responded to these and similar situations you encountered as an arbitrator and will probably encounter if elected to another term.

   Number 16 is funny, anyone hallucinating that they divine needs to find a good psychiatrist ASAP and get off the computer. Actually, all of them are, because I've seen them all happen to someone, if not me personally, so that was a well-designed list four years ago. 11 is fairly simple; no one does decent work exhausted; if tired, get sleep and work on the voting in the morning. PD's take too damned long already, an eight hour delay in your voting is better than sleep-voting. If actually ill, it can be better to go inactive entirely on a case. 12 is time to weigh the evidence, weigh the arguments on both sides, and vote your conscience; Arbcom is elected to make the hard decisions, sometimes those are going to break 8-7 one way or the other. For 2, I find you often have some idea how long real life is going to be a problem. A day or so is usually no big deal, but if it is more significant length of time, I'd prefer to ask the clerks to indent my votes and mark me inactive.

2. Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?

   I'm pretty much not, thanks to geography. The nearest events that seem to happen to my home would take between five and seven hours of round-trip travel (and sixty USD in fares/parking) depending on the day, and they often are held on weekdays anyhow. I'll put up with that travel time and expense for something fairly special like the WikiConference USA, but geography sucks, and being on Arbcom or not doesn't shrink distances or make train fares cheaper.

4. One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?

   Key Lime, though a good homemade pecan is a close second.

2. I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?

   I'm not a member of either group.