Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/DeltaQuad

Hello all, I'm DeltaQuad. I've been an Administrator since May 2011 and CheckUser July 2012. I'm also currently a standby member for the Audit Subcommittee. I'm currently concerned not only that we don't have enough candidates, we do not have a solid group to choose from to do the crazy job of an arbitrator. Therefore I'm running in hope that others who I know would well serve the committee also stand.

Right now we have an overloaded, busy Arbitration Committee that the community has lost a significant amount of faith in. It's not a healthy mix. It needs a fix, even if it's a slow daunting band-aid by band-aid fix until things are stable again. I would like to see the Arbitration Committee hand some tasks over to the community, such as the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee. While I'm not sure how everything would look like in the end, the less Arbitrators we have for a specified task that isn't sensitive or directly under ArbCom remit (aka a case), the better. I'll support any reasonable proposal to do so. I won't get into specifics with that right at this moment though. The other major reason that I am running, is to help alleviate some of the administrative backlog that the committee deals with such as email response and yearly activities (CU/OS/AUSC noms & reports).

The community is and should be a candidates' biggest priority as being an Arbitrator if elected. You, each individual voter and contributor matters to continue to build a successful encyclopedia. As any candidate should already do, Arbitrators should listen with a fair and open mind, stop disruption, and enable the wiki to flow as smoothly as possible. Whether using harder corrective measures such as blocks and bans or giving people second chances; I will always read into the issue an be informed to well serve the community, and put them first.

Disclosures: A list of my accounts and I already and will continue to comply with the WMF Identification Policy.

• DeltaQuad (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: DeltaQuad 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=}}

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?

   I had known what Wikipedia was for years (from a readers viewpoint) before I joined, and one time I noticed that you could login and signup. I was curious as to why you could do that for a site that is just a whole bunch of entries. To my surprise, I found that you could actually edit Wikipedia and help repel things like vandalism. So I signed up on the spot.

4. What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?

   On a day to day basis most of my time is spent at Sockpuppet investigations and ACC and trying to keep the backlog clear. I also like to help close RFCs and deletion requests. On top of that, any issues or requests in regards to my bot or UTRS I attend to.

6. 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?

   As I stated above, I close RfC and deletion requests every so often. There are a few lessons I have learned from that. In my closes I always try to mention both sides of the debate in a broad view so people know I've reviewed the material. While they may not see my direct line of thinking, they will at least be able to see it's direction. Also, you need to be very clear with your closes and leave no room for ambiguity. I've had more than once someone come to my talk page for a clarification that could have been fixed with my wording. I've also been on the other side of the boot where I was the dispute and had the Audit Subcommittee investigate.

8. 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?

   There needs to be a balance in time management. I'm not saying it should be equal, some cases will be faster, some slower completely due to their nature. ArbCom members clearly need to make sure their decisions are fair and neutrally represented. Their is nothing worse than the committee putting out a one sided case and the community losing faith even more in the Committee. But that needs to be augmented within reason. One of the reasons I'm running is to help reduce the administrative backlog that there is so that we can focus on those cases more.
   
   I do not feel like the case process is broken. The theory is a simple 4 process step where arbitrators decide if they need to hear a case, hear out the parties, have decisions proposed, and choose the best direction for the committee. I haven't personally been involved in a case, though I do read them. At this time I would propose no changes to the process, just changes to the priorities Arbitrators set and the backlogs that aren't visible to everyone. If there is something that could be changed once I become more familiar with the process, I'd be happy to propose it.

10. 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?

    This honestly reminds me of a game I used to play several years ago called Pajama Sam where he very clearly stated my view, just in a different context. We are not one without the other. Subject experts should be helping to educate the general editors in the subject matter, and the general editors helping the experts understand the standards of the wiki. Then we can have people form their opinions and obtain a solid consensus. If we forget we are here to collaborate, to build a better encyclopedia we might as well close up shop now and not waste our time.

12. 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?

    I do feel it needs change, the whole admin process really does, but that is another axe to grind. We currently promote admins by community consensus, but remove them by only a small fraction of that original group which is not a direct representation of the community. I think there is a critical flaw in that. Granted, Arbs were elected to do such a job, but I feel their needs to be direct members of the community involved when it comes to this. It's definitely a process I'd like to see at least partially handed over to the community in a reasonable manner where we don't lose all our admins at once or have the process never work. I don't have any specific plan or idea for it at this second, though.

14. 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?

    If we are talking about off-wiki sites like Wikipedia Review and friends, I don't read them. Simply put they distract us from the overall picture and are a time-sink within themselves. Since the Wikimedia Foundation has started to create a fund to help defend those in legal action, I feel legal issues are less of an issue for me personally, but still very serious, and I would treat them as such. We don't rule on content as a Committee, so I don't see much of a chance for people to be able to have a solid legal case against me. I have a thick skin, but I'm also willing to drop the stick when it's time. I've handled large unpleasant issues before as I mentioned above, so I really don't see it as a large issue.

16. 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?

    The CheckUser policy, as a checkuser i'm intimately familiar with, along with the privacy policy. I've had my fair share of reading in the oversight policy as I have found things in my CU work which need oversight every so often. I have no purview on the process in which the Wikimedia Foundation handles private information, so I will abstain from making any comments. As for volunteers, I think things are being handled quite well, sometimes though, CUs and OS members can be a tad bit over protective, I've been there, done that. I also encourage others to review my comments from the AUSC nominations this year.

18. 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?

    As I said in my nomination statement, "the less Arbitrators we have for a specified task that isn't sensitive or directly under ArbCom remit (aka a case), the better. I'll support any reasonable proposal to do so." Basic tasks can either be a shared responsibility or completely handed over. Ban Appeals (except for ArbCom based appeals) is one I feel could be directly handed over to the community.

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?

   That alone as you state it, no. There needs to be evidence of previous dispute resolution, and frankly, I have faith in the process that a simple issue like that could be handled without touching Arbitration. Of course though if other factors come into play such as ignoring consensus, edit warring, etc. then it could eventually lead to a case within the preview of ArbCom after dispute resolution has been attempted.

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?

   If ArbCom starts to evaluate facts and sources, it is going to have to get involved in the content dispute itself which is not in the mandate for ArbCom. That's why we look at the editor's ability to follow the policies that the community has established. So to clearly answer the question, yes it is possible to evaluate without getting into the dispute.

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?

   It would probably involve remedies for each user involved, whether warnings or sanctions to eliminate the cherry picking of sources to create a biased article, as it's not appropriate conduct for the users. This is all assuming of course previous DR attempts were made.

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?

   I find your question really difficult to understand. So I'm breaking it down. Your providing an example of a situation which I feel can be dealt with by the community (determining an editor's COI and dealing with it), and is out of the scope of Arbitration. Separately, I would feel that if the editor has one COI issue, and they present another one, that whoever addresses it would take both into consideration.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 17 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?

   We do have an issue with civility. As I stated up in Rschen7754 #5, we need to be able to productively co-exist and edit collaboratively to create a well rounded encyclopedia. The problem is civility doesn't stop with civility. As that video I linked showed, some eventually devolve into personal attacks, one side digging in because the other guy won't play nice in the sandbox, or an environment where people can't get any work done.
   
   That being said, we can only enforce so much on an encyclopedia that is maintained online. People who are consistently uncivil and are disrupting things need to be dealt with. On the contrary, if we have someone who just caught up in the heat of the moment, lets all move on and leave the sticks behind, and let it be a learning experience. I do not though view individual words as uncivil, as sometimes a spade needs to be called a spade. Just keep it clean.

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?

   It poses an interesting dilemma in how we neutrally represent the world in our content, but I don't view it as a significant problem. The Committee does not have any ability to deal with this issue, and should treat every editor the same, just as we want to be treated day in and day out. (I would expand on my view with this, but alas there are other questions to answer...I may come back to it.)

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Thanks for being ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you are an arb, how would you comment in this case? Hint: you don't have to evaluate a whole case, just one request. My so far favourite comment has four words ;)

   The restriction was not worded that well in my opinion, but we can't predict every issue and word everything correctly. The particular case you mention is helpful, but disruptive at the same time by causing the associated drama by pressing the wording to the letter the drama that occurred after the edit, was disruptive and unnecessary. Ultimately, he was helping a new editor improve an article and it's not technically worded into the restriction, so I would take no action, and say there is no violation.

4. Why would you think an ultimately helpful edit caused drama?

   This response and this response. While I could potentially understand a user harassment case if it was argued, it doesn't assist in the resolution of the situation. It could have been discussed out peacefully on the talkpage before being dragged in front of everyone at Arbitration Enforcement. I believe the community should really try and solve out issues before stepping into the realms of Arbitration. Even Arbitration Enforcement. That said, it's not it's not a suicide pact. If the discussion wasn't fruitful, I would have expected a thread at AE.

6. Can we agree that it wasn't the edit that caused drama, but its handling? A response (IF a user's edits have to be followed at all) could have been the thank-you-button, or at least looking closer before action, and then better no action? Can we agree that instead we had unnecessary time-wasting drama on three boards?

   Yes we can agree on that. I'm not sure what you mean though by your question "A response (IF a user's edits have to be followed at all) could have been the thank-you-button, or at least looking closer before action, and then better no action?", so I have disregarded it. Feel free to reask if it has more of a point to it. I apologize, I worded incorrectly above and have amended it.

No, thanks, you answered well. I only wanted to express that I would have clicked the thank-you-button for the edit, as improving Wikipedia and helping a new user to learn better formatting, in the unlikely event that I had met that edit. I got to know of it by the warning and request to revert. I would not have reverted a good edit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 22 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?

   A case can be opened without the presumption that sanctions are necessary. Situations can actively change, someone could get through to an editor and the disruptive behavior stops. Arbitrators need to be doing what's best for the community, not simply imposing sanctions because a case is accepted. It's like someone being taken to court, being found innocent and still being sentenced. It doesn't make any sense. Case requests are also only preliminary, they don't always show the whole entire story.

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?

   Arbitrators really need to have reasoning behind the actions they take, and I feel it's only appropriate that a finding be issued for a sanction to be put in place. If ANI blatantly was unable to find a consensus, the Arbitration Committee should really avoid placing one of their own, barring extenuating circumstances such as vote fraud. If there was no real consensus either way, I could see the Committee voting for a sanction and passing it.

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

   Coming from a sockpuppet investigations background i'm very much about the linear process. There are no circumstances in which as an Arbitrator I would break from reading the evidence and workshop pages.

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?

   The community is a constantly changing one, and one thing we need to remember is that consensus doesn't mean our feet are stuck in the mud and we can't change it. So due to the ever changing community, in values and policies, I think it's quite reasonable that things change from a case to case basis. That said precedent does have it's place, and Arbitrators should not be going way off of what they said in a previous case without some change within the community's opinion on such policies.

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

    Absolutely, it's our "Core Values" statement as companies these days define it. If we are walking away from those, then what are we here to build? Those values only sum up our current policies, so to walk away from them is to walk away from our policies. Some pillars in my mind, do weigh heavier than others, but still work to balance each other out.

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?

    This is one policy where weight and emphasis need to be heavy. This policy if not followed can cause real damage to someone living or who has just passed. It can also ruin where they currently stand. Therefore due to the sensitivity of the field, community regulation is an absolute requirement. I don't think I need to explain what the potential harms of not following the guidance and policies of BLP would cause.

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?

    Factions, are a group of people with a single objective or platform and that's all they ultimately care about, and they actively push that platform. It is concerning to see them out there. Currently there are not sufficient policies to prevent them, but there are sufficient policies and a road of Arbitration to deal with them. I think everyone's involvement in such a group is different. Some are there because they truly believe in the cause, others are there because it has a desired secondary affect. Therefore I feel the Committee should never rule against a "faction" as this would also create a divide between the community and a group. Sometimes it also gives recognition, causes more issues, and becomes an even bigger deal than it should be. Each editor on the Wiki is responsible for their own actions, and I believe that in real life also. Just because your part of a group, doesn't shift the blame off of you.

Thank you Collect (talk) 12:27, 17 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?

   I can see your line of thinking in which you could call this a policy change, but I see it as another remedy to one of the more sensitive areas of Wikipedia. Outside of this, I would prefer to stay away from such wide sweeping remedies.

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?

   I do it over at SPI and I wouldn't be here if I wasn't able to.

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?

   It's an interesting idea to say the least, but then we get into issues of Arbitrators only handling certain cases, calls of favoritism or enforcement towards one user or a group, etc. I would not support such a solution as I feel it's more a solution looking for a problem. The only problem is time, not the amount of Arbs on a case. You still only have one or two people drafting.

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?

   It does require a lot of patience. I re-learned from my first big round of hard times regarding my use of CheckUser and a public inquiry to take things one step at a time, one day at a time. The world wasn't changed in a day, crazy situations aren't fixed over night. I do feel like I have the patience required for the job.

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?

    I might drop hints as to where I think it might go on occasion, but that does not preclude me from seeing it change and go a completely different direction by the time a case ends. I would never make indications to things such as individual user remedies that early unless we are considering dealing with it by motion.

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 would not waive my right. Not because I want to look partisan, but I feel like me making this statement will come to bite me in the butt in the future especially if I find something that needs to go to Arbitration, but no one is picking it up. Of course I would recuse myself from any case I filed.

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?

    I am a Checkuser already. I object to the statement that a lot of CUs abuse the privilege and I would ask you to back your statement up with some evidence. I don't condone or support such a move to block someone who is not doing what they are being blocked for.

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?

    I agree with it, partly. We don't see 'justice' in our 5 pillars, because we are here to build an encyclopedia. Our objective is to prevent damage to Wikipedia, not to be punitive towards others or establish restitution. (If we did that...hell...some of us might actually get paid...</sarcasm>) That being said, the 'fairness' part is a little more subjective. People have different views of what is fair and what is not. It would be better to say "It's not all about justice, it's about treating each other right."

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

2. 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?

   No. There are reasons committees meet in private, and I suspect (as I never have been an Arbitrator) that the environment in which such discussions occur already isn't completely healthy. If we open deliberations open to the public, not only would we be wasting much more time with everyone responding to each and every comment an Arbitrator makes, but then cases would draw out even longer. The community has already noted that they don't want such a thing. Also, sometimes Arbitrators have to discuss the harder road that needs to be taken first, and it could be a very delicate situation for the community. Arbitrators should then be able to form their thoughts first before putting them to scrutiny of the community which is literally endless. That said though, I'm not against transparency within reason. Sometimes summaries or reports can be helpful.

Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I couldn't possibly grade ArbCom without at the very least seeing internal procedures occur. That being said, I feel several administrative details could of either been handled more timely, or actually of been handled (vs. not being touched). Having 60% of the caseload of the past two years, I really felt there was more time available. The biggest issue I see, as it directly relates to the fields I work in is not doing a round of CUOS appointments, yet still removing functionaries for inactivity. This, despite backlogs for both teams and under staffing being discussed twice this year (May and early November). I don't know if I have a best moment as of right now, but I'll continue looking into the election.

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 feel Rschen7754's question #4 above adequately addresses your question already.

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

   The Arbitration Committee. I'll quote my original statement, "Right now we have an overloaded, busy Arbitration Committee that the community has lost a significant amount of faith in. It's not a healthy mix. It needs a fix, even if it's a slow daunting band-aid by band-aid fix until things are stable again." As I go on to say in my statement, there needs to be more community involvement in certain affairs of the committee, if not things handed over.

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Hi, DQ. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?

   WTT, I want to thank you for this question, as I feel it's a really important one that deals with the temperament of an Arbitrator. Throughout life, I've learned the principle of taking things one step at a time, one day at a time, even through the difficult times. It's not about where you end up, it's about the journey, your struggles, and what you learned. You have to hold on to your principles and values, and don't let them be compromised, because that's all you have to hold on to some days. If it means you stand as one in a million, then be that one in a million. I have indeed thought about the dark side. Since I was running in 2011, I have thought about endless possibilities that could occur within the Committee or to the Committee. I hope a majority if not all of those thoughts come to life, but I understand that it might very well happen. The important part is to stick through it, show your resolve to fight for the principles of the Wiki and come out even stronger than you were when you entered.

Thanks for answering DQ, you've given me a lot of confidence there. I wish you the best of luck. Worm^TT(talk) 09:45, 25 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!

   I could see it as a guideline, but only a guideline. There is too much flexibility allowed with the text to make it a procedure/policy. Though, the general idea of it in terms of privacy is a good idea. The wording of "If the response is not a routine one for which a standard response is being issued, common practice is to post a draft on the applicable mailing list or on the arbitration wiki for comment and copy editing by peers before publishing for complex matters, or to respond with a notation that other arbitrators may comment further." seems quite bureaucratic, and I can't follow it all the way through.

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 would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.

2. You sense you are very tired/ill or not fully alert, but voting needs to be done.

   There is nothing worse than an Arbitrator trying to do things when they know they mentally can't. I've been there with running CU checks before. When I see that it's really complicated and it's late, I leave it for the next day and mark it in progress. I would follow in the same footsteps if elected as an Arbitrator. The community comes first, and when your making decisions on cases, they need you at your best. If you can't do that, make a note somewhere that you'll get up early the next day and get it done.

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 attended the Berlin 2012 Hackathon and the Amsterdam Hackathon 2013, I could not though make it to the 2014 one. I was very happy to be a participant in both 2012 and 2013. I would be willing to participate just as much as my schedule, job, and finances allow. Sadly due to where I live in the great white north, there are not many Wikimedia events around locally.

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?

   In my favorite of all 42 questions I've been asked, Pumpkin. Baked Apple pie 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 am a male, and I feel that my sexual orientation is not the business of any Wikimedian. That said, I have had friends that fall under some of the the four sexual orientations you list. That said, I treat every editor here on Wikipedia the same, whether LGBT or not, female, or any other minority group you would find. Most of the time, I don't even know that they are different unless the specifically declare it in a discussion. Do I have any experience I would like to state surrounding women or LGBTs? No.