Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Salvidrim!

Fuck it, I'll be the first to throw my hat in. There are, for now, 9 vacant seats on ArbCom for the upcoming election. I only nominate myself because there are not currently 9 candidates whom I trust to fill these seats and their duties. I will gladly later withdraw my candidacy if there are ever 9 such candidates. To put it another way: if there are 9 candidates who I think would do a good job as arbitrators, I will withdraw and support them. I don't want to be an arbitrator but I would rather begrudgingly sit on ArbCom than see people I don't trust be elected because of the lack of a better alternative. It is my hope that there will be a sufficient number of qualified, trusted candidates and thus that I will be able to continue having a meaningul, peaceful life outside of the Committee.

Oh, and because the rules say this is required: Yes, I'm already identified to the WMF. Yes, I will sign the confidentiality agreement if elected (I've already signed the OTRS-specific one). Whatever alternative/humour/doppelganger accounts I have are all redirected to my main one and listed at the bottom of my userpage, but here's a list anyways: Salvidumbass!, Salvidrim, Salv~enwiki, Salvid, Salvadrim, Ben Landry, Benoit Landry. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

• I've always maintained I would withdraw if there were a sufficient number of candidates I would support, and I'm honouring that promise. There are at least nine candidates I will support.⁽¹⁾ Sorry if this seems WP:POINTy but I couldn't bear the thought that shitty people could be elected and that I wouldn't feel justified complaining because I had failed to actually try to do better when I had the chance. At least now I know for sure that the Arbitrators we will elect will do a far better job than I ever could've. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2015 candidate: Salvidrim! 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=}}

2. With the greatest respect, how can we trust you to be an arbitrator given that your account was recently compromised? Can we be sure that such a thing will never happen again? --Biblioworm 18:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   How can you be sure your own account will never be compromised? How can you be sure any other arbitrator's account can never be compromised? How can you be sure the WMF's databases will never be compromised? Short answer: you can't -- this is the Internet age and everything has vulnerabilites. However, what you can do is take steps to try and minimize risk: I encourage everyone (editors, admins, functionaries) to make sure their Wikimedia password is unique (by changing it to something unique, not by changing every other place you think you remember using it like I did, which was a bad 2013 choice) and as secure as possible (XKCD provides some great ideas); and as many have pointed out, the WMF's login system's own security standards are far too lax and should be improved greatly, at least by enforcing a minimum password complexity, and potentially by enabling two-factor authentication. But 100% security is never going to be possible for anyone anywhere online. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

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

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work for the Arbitration Comitee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   That's hard to quantify, because the work I do for Wikipedia is cut up in several minutes-long blocks interspersed throughout the day -- remaining available every waking hour is how I often respond to pings very quickly. But I expect to spend at least one to two hours per day sitting down and focusing strictly on ArbWork, be it e-mails or cases or research. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

4. Do you have a very secure email address that can handle several hundred mails per day(and several thousand mails in total if you have to take a small break)?--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes. I'm not sure what more details you're expecting in reply to this yes-or-no question, but I already receive hundreds of mails per day, I'd just have to phase out some projects in favor of ArbWork if I have to sit on the committee. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

Thank you for stepping forward!

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

   First of all -- I would not close it, but would instead consider participating in the discussion in favor of the Infobox (and of infoboxes in general); this is something I believe in too much to feel unbiased enough to close a discussion on it. But I know this sounds like I'm avoiding your question, so if I try to put aside my own opinions on the matter: Folantin's claim that he created the article and that his editorial preference not to have an infobox should hold priority runs against long-standing community consensus with regards to "ownership" claims. Montanabw's initial intervention was certainly less-than-helpful and made an assumption that Gerda and Folantin (and others) weren't going to hold a perfectly civil and constructive discussion -- in fact, in light of Remedy 3.3/FoF 6 of the Infobox case, Gerda's approach is particularily commendable. In the same case, FoF 1 provides little guidance, outside of outlining the issues -- what outcome should "no consensus" default to, whether the editorial wishes of the creator or whether consistency with other articles should be given added weight... As for the discussion on the addition of the infobox itself -- Folantin opposes it, and four commenters support it: Amakuru, 4meter4, Andy, and Gerda. Even if we decided to assign more weight to Folantin's point due to him being the article's creator, IMO this would look like consensus in favor of adding the Infobox to any adminstrator responding to a request for closure; but as mentioned, I would definitely leave it for someone else to close because of how difficult it is to make sure my own bias isn't making this tip from "no consensus" to "in favor of Infobox". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Although I admittedly have not had a lot of experience with AE (it's clearly a hellish experience for anyone involved, isn't it?), it has never made sense to me that ArbCom delegates the enforcement of their own decisions. While the common argument is that Arbitrators are otherwise too busy to handle it, I'd really prefer it if those who votes on remedies are also the ones that have to apply, interpret and enforce them. And most of the time, violations of remedies can be dealt with without blocks -- as long as there is the required assumption of good faith, a warning to the user that they have somehow run afoul of a remedy to allow them to self-revert and take a step back would probably suffice. Blocking for an arbitrary length of time of punitive and only serves to deprive Wikipedia of this editor's time. That's not to say blocks are never an answer, but for someone who's shown enough interest and dedication to Wikipedia to stick around and continue working even after going through a grueling ArbCom case (we're all fucking volunteers), their efforts should be channeled positively, not shut down at the source if the user's behaviour does not conform strictly to what some people think it should. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. To what extent should people who write many GAs and FAs be exempt from WP:CIVIL?

   Hah, I knew this would come up. My own views on this subject have historically been widly unpopular, so I don't expect to win any sympathy with this answer, but I have to be honest. While cases of harassment and targetted bullying, or racism/sexism/etc., should of course be dealt with by removing the problem editor from our environment, editors who produce quality content but who are otherwise disagreeable, contrarian, whiny, POINTy, agressive or vulgar should be encouraged not to interact with other editors and should instead focus on content contributions. I wish there was a way to force an editor to minimal interaction but still allow them to produce encyclopedic content. But apparently many Wikipedia editors value the community more (or at least as much) as the actual encyclopedic content, and that's not something I agree with. Encyclopedic content should always be everyone's priority, and the community, cooperation and collaboration behind-the-scenes should only be a means-to-an-end to produce reader-facing content. This is very ironic from someone running from ArbCom and whose own content contributions are, frankly, shitty stubs, but being part of a problem doesn't mean you can't still try to help fix it. But if I see someone who writes FAs every other month and calls others editors stupid wankers, then I might try to limit communications, not limit contributions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:58, 8 November 2015 (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?

   Cases should be opened for conflicts the community has proved incapable of resolving by itself. Just because the community has hit a dead-end doesn't mean the Committee will have to start swinging its banhammer and any arbitrator who accepts a case after having already made up his mind to apply sanctions has failed in his duties of thoroughness and impartiality. Sometimes, just airing things out through the organized system that is an arbitration case is enough to push along resolution of some situations. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

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

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

   We're all humans, and (I'm reapeating myself by this needs to be hammered home), we're all fucking volunteers, with lives outside of Wikipedia. Cases about specific editors can and should be put on hold until he or she comes back. Hearing a case about someone in absentia only serves to reinforce the notion that many hold about ArbCom being akin to a kangaroo court. Hearing what someone has to say in a case about them isn't just the fair thing to do, it's the human thing to do.
   As for word limits... I'm not a big fan of them. I understand that some people need structure, but I would much rather allow more words but require that longer details and diffs be collapsed under a clear summary, to allow both fast reading of the overall points and an in-depth analysis of all the details and diffs, without taking too much spatial real estate. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

2. You state on your user page:

   ".- If an IP or plausible sock is editing constructively, then I prefer not knowing if they're secretly a banned user, for some people might clamor for a block despite policy that says rules should never get in the way of improvements."
   

   It appears that you dislike enforcing the rules against banned editors, e.g. WP:BANREVERT, and are willing to pass the buck or even mislead other editors (per your first link to Plausible deniability) It also appears you are misinterpreting your second link (WP:Ignore all rules) to say that rules you dislike should be systematically ignored.

   As an arb, would you consider banning grossly misbehaving editors? Do you think other editors should help enforce those bans? Perhaps you might prefer to only enforce those bans yourself, or have them not be enforced at all? Would you consider sanctioning, or even banning an editor for reverting banned editors per WP:BANREVERT? Smallbones_(smalltalk)

   I don't think "preferring plausible deniability" implies an intent to mislead others. It just means that as long as you don't tell me you're socking, I can maintain the benefit of doubt and continue to allow constructive contributions.
   I'm not saying "rules I dislike should be systematically ignored". I'm saying if the rules say "revert this constructive edit because the editor is actually banned", then you should not revert it, because IAR clearly says that rules should never get in the way of content improvements.
   If you're reverting someone for the sole purpose of enforcing rules without taking into consideration the quality of the contributions you're reverting, then I will disagree with you. I'd love to see WP:BANREVERT be heavily toned down, at least in its application by rules zealots. That a creation by a banned editor be eligible for CSD isn't necessarily a bad thing, but systematically CSD'ing every creation regardless of its quality is stupid and destructive to Wikipedia's ultimate goal (reader-facing content). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

2. I'm sorry, but i find your answer to the first question about the recent compromising of your account unsatisfactory and flippant. Yes, this was a bit of a wakeup call for admins to strenghten their passwords, but it is my understanding that you were using nothing but a six digit number for yours. If this hadn't just happened, and you succeeded in your bid here, we would have an arbitrator wihose password could very easily be cracked. I also realize this "white hat" hacker apologized to you for the timing, but it happened, and I feel like in your reply to the previous question you blamed everyone but yourself, when in fact your password was laughably weak. In light of this, do you have anything to add on this subject?

   "I feel like in your reply to the previous question you blamed everyone but yourself" -- If what you want is contrition: sure, my password wasn't very strong, but the main issue was that, before 2013, I was using the same password in several locations, including Wikimedia. When I became an admin, I decided that my Wikimedia password should be unique. Where I fucked up royally was that I changed every other instance of use of this password (thereby missing one associated with an XSplit account I don't recall creation, and which was subsequently leaked in an XSplit hack)... instead of changing the Wikimedia password itself. So sure -- I take the blame fully, and I fucked up. I fucked up badly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

I don't want to beat up on you about this or demand groveling or anything, I just didn't find your previous reply very compelling. Thanks for taking the time to reply again. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you find "I fucked up badly" to be satisfyingly compelling. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred? Yash! 05:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Hi Salvidrim! I expect I'll be asking my usual question to all candidates at some point during the election, but I thought I'd ask you something specifically before I get round to it. I'm concerned about your actions on Wikipediocracy in the past. Specifically, you have hinted that you would leak from IRC admin channel and you have posted personal information about a minor. So, my question covers a number of areas - how do we know you will not leak private, personal information? How do you feel your relationship with Wikipediocracy will affect your actions as an Arbitrator? Where do you stand on off-wiki actions in retaliation for on-wiki actions? Worm^TT(talk) 09:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Just noting that Salvidrim! has answered a number of these points privately while I was on Arbcom, but as he's running, I thought it best to let him answer here too[reply]

   Hopefully it's not too cheesy to restate pretty much the same thing I've said back when I replied to this inquiry in August 2014, when I was an AUSC candidate.
   
   I never intended, and will never, share logs of non-publicly-logged IRC channels, for as long as that violates Freenode's TOS or on-wiki policy. I still believe that public channels should be publicly logged: if anyone is able to read what is being said, anyone should be able to re-read what was said. While I'd support an effort to change the logging policies towards public IRC channels, I do not care about it enough to go on a one-man crusade. But if I was to act, I would try to get the TOS/policy changed, as we normally do; I would not willingly violate these TOS/policies for as long as they stand.
   
   As for the WO posts, I had only re-posted what PinkAmpersand himself has posted on-wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PinkAmpersand&oldid=564033516 linking to http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=5602, as well as other now-oversighted diffs), which does indeed contain a picture of a younger PinkAmpersand. That the user was apparently currently underage at the time I cross-posted the pictures over on WO was not a thought that had crossed my mind, although in retrospect it was something that could've been plausibly guessable. I'm still of the opinion that reposting (on-wiki or elsewhere) things that a user has said or linked to on-wiki cannot reasonably be considered a breach of privacy, although in this case I respect the decision to err on the side of prudence.
   
   As for off-site contributions: I am a member of WO (primarily as a reader, although I sometimes post); I am an active member of r/WikiInAction; I am a member of at least two Wikipedia-related FB groups; I follow many Wikipedia editors on Twitter, some of them banned... and all that for the same reason: I strongly believe that knowing everybody's positions is the key to staying well-informed. I want to know -- know what banned editors are ranting about, know what WO members are chatting about, know what criticism Wikipedia and its admins/editors/arbs are currently facing -- I firmly believe that knowledge is power. Even if we disagree on many, many things, these are discussions I want to at least be aware of. Not only do I believe my membership on WO and other such off-wiki places to be beneficial to my work as an admin (and, maybe, to my future work as an Arb), but I believe that every Arbitrator should at least have an account and read the forums regularly. There is no good reason to ignore anyone's ideas or arguments about Wikipedia and arbitration and all that stuff. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

4. Thanks for that. I was satisfied with those answers before, and I'm still satisfied with them. That said, I do still have a couple of questions outstanding. Many Arbcom emails were published a few years ago and in a subsequent incident one Arb was found to be have passed an email to a friend - can I ask your thoughts on the privacy of the arbcom list?

   The personal answer -- I wish privacy in general was less of an issue in today's world. I supported Google+ and Facebook's initiative to "force" people to use their real names and not pseudonyms (although their treatment of less basic cases, like transgendered individuals or member of First Nations, remains lacking in many aspects), and while I know this will probably never come to pass on Wikimedia projects, it's an idea I would not oppose. That being said, as long as the Terms of Use/WMF/Wikimedia policies grant the guarantee of privacy and anonymity for individuals, having a private ArbCom mailing list appears unavoidable. But I largely prefer transparency and would support a proposition to either have a non-private mailing list for any matters not directly privacy-related, or perhaps have a mechanism where e-mails are archived visibly but with redactions of privacy-related issue. This would add a bureaucratic step and would make ArbCom even closer to a government with top secret and redacted cables, but I'm just brainstorming ideas to make communications and deliberations more transparent. ArbCom is elected by the community and the community should be able to see most of what ArbCom does and talks about. I hold the same position for the governments our democracies elect, so it's not something unique to ArbCom -- I simply think transparency is almost always better, and it's why I personally am very transparent with my own life. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. Wikipedia exists largely in a bubble and the vast majority of community sanctions are based on on-wiki actions. If anything happens off-wiki, the information is passed to Arbcom so as not to violate "OUTING", or the like. How do you feel about the OUTING policy? What about doxing generally?

8. And finally, my standard question (sorry for asking so many, I know this whole period can be quite trying at the best of times). 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   That's interesting -- I'd expect those asking questions to do the bare minimum of research. All of that information and more is publicly displayed on my user page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉
   

   Follow-up response: It can be inferred from my userpage, but if you prefer to have it laid out explicitely:
   * The only thing I'd consider a "disability" is my poor eyesight -- heavy myopia and some astigmatism, but fully corrected with these glasses I wear in my picture.
   * My job as a "project coordinator" would probably be classified as junior management. I make roughly 35k$ per year as a single man without children, which seems to place me somewhere betwixt middle class and upper middle class, depending on which economist you prefer. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

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

2. Do you still think I am Vigilant?

   This was an initial conclusion that was based on assumptions. There is no verifiable information (that I'm aware of) that would either prove or disprove that this IP is used by Wikipediocracy user Vigilant. Your question pertains to what I think, but my own gut feeling is of little relevance, since without evidence it would be irresponsible for me to take action or formulate suspicions. The IP is attributed to Telewest (now owned by Virgin) and you've previously posted claims that you "knew" Vigilant was a California-based IT worker, and as weird as it is for you to "know" that fact while maintaining you don't know who Vigilant is, there's little one can do with simple allegations. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

4. I could work out that Vigilant was a California-based IT worker in a similar way to that in which you (or whoever hacked your Twitter account) could work out that Hex was a "fancy-haired Brit". Now do you think that someone who blasts away with their advance permissions whenever their dodgy assumptions make them think that two plus two equals five is suitable candidate for Arbcom?

   Nobody hacked my Twitter account, but thanks a lot for the very tactical implication by question! I do think that someone who is willing and ready to admit fault and reverse or amend their decisions when questioned makes for a "suitable candidate for ArbCom". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

2. Are you aware about WP:ARBIP? India-Pakistan conflict related topics are few of most sensitive areas of Wikipedia and as per experience these topics have been ignored by the ArbCom. Are you willing to look into matters related to India-Pakistan and will you strictly execute the sanctions on these topics and involved editors if necessary?

Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

2. User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on Wikipedia with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Wikipedia user Bar. The Bar account on Wikipedia is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Wikipedia account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of WP:OUTING and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Wikipedia account?

4. User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her Wikipedia username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Wikipedia." She looks into the account that has uploaded these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Wikipedia User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to Wikipediocracy's forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Wikipedia editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of WP:OUTING as part of their justification for site banning Alice?

2. You are, as discussed above, a regular participant in the pro-Gamergate Reddit forum r/wikiinaction. This is a forum where disruptive activities on Wikipedia are openly planned and discussed and Wikipedia editors are regularly mocked, outed, and harassed. Just this week comments and contributions accused a prominent Wikipedian by name of exchanging fellatio for votes in this election and included a blog post which revealed the identities and images of two different prominent Wikipedians, capping in the following threat of physical violence: "What I don't understand is why no one's tried beating the will out of them. We know their names, where they live. It'd be virtually impossible to connect a random wikipedian to the crime. Not just for the good of the project or some sense of "justice" - but for their sake. The way incarceration often helps addicts recover, I think a forced wiki break would improve their quality of life long term." How does participation in a forum where such comments and activities are openly celebrated square with the role of an Arbitrator? What obligations do you feel as a potential Arbitrator to members of the community who are the victims of this behavior? Were you on the Committee, what actions would you take when you see future examples of this behavior in this forum?

   One thing that is very clear to everyone is that ArbCom can't do anything in response to off-wiki harassment unless it can be linked beyond reasonable doubt to a Wikipedia account, and even then, we can only ban the harasser from Wikipedia. Harassment online, offline, on-wiki or off-wiki should be dealt with by law enforcement. It's unfortunate that law enforcement often responds poorly to such reports but that is far beyond the scope of what the committee can influence -- at best, Wikimedia/WMF can try to educate lawmakers and law enforcement agencies on online harassment, but I don't see that as a responsibility specific to ArbCom.
   
   As for my presence on various off-site gathering places such as r/WikiInAction, Wikipediocracy, FB groups -- as I've said earlier, I think that being aware of this harassment and these threats is far better than refusing to engage. I don't think that speaking with people at certain venues can be construed as an endorsement of their words and actions, and given the choice, I'd rather be an active reader of this harassment, even if I can't do much about it. I think every Arbitrator should at least regularly peruse and take in what is being said at these venues, because knowledge is power. I would rather read and take in the harassment and cringe/rage/cry than avoid the venues where it is propagated entirely. I am an optimist, and I do hope fellow editors are intelligent enough to understand that just because I comment on r/WikiInAction does not mean I would stalk and beat up other people, nor that I support those who voice these threats -- the very thought that people might consider the possibility of me endorsing such heinous attacks is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
   
   Oh, and a quick note on the mention of GG -- anyone who bothers to look at who I am will quickly discover I am a passionate gamer, and that I've made a conscious and deliberate effort to avoid ever talking about, taking position on, or even thinking about Gamergate. The only reason I even read r/WikiInAction is because it's about Wikipedia and nothing else. I'm interested in venues that discuss Wikipedia. IDGAF about pro or anti GG. In fact, finding more Wikipedia-related subreddits is one of the first things I asked about when I found out about r/WikiInAction (I have only been a Redditor for some months). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

2. In your answer to Gamaliel's first question, you write that your involvement in communities such as the subreddit WikiInAction does not construe an endorsement of their words and actions. A large figure and contributor of the harassment in WikiInAction is reddit user StukaLied, with such diamonds as calling editor DD2K a "little mincing sissy" and perpetually referring to editor MarkBernstein only as 'Reichstag' because he believes MarkBernstein is Jewish. You gave editor Starke Hathaway a 'Defender of the Wiki' award because you believed they were StukaLied. Do you not believe that giving awards to a person is an endorsement of their words and actions, and if those words and actions are primarily notable for the harassment they contain it is thus an endorsement of harassment? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

   You know what? Good question. I've heard Arbitrators/Admins state that ArbCom is tasked with enforcing both EnWiki policy and the WMF's Terms of Use^{(citation needed)}, but nowhere in its scope does it mention such enforcement. In fact, I do not even think the ArbCom's duties include "enforcement of EnWiki policies" in and of itself -- that responsibility falls upon administrators; and of course, Terms of Use should be (and is) enforced by WMF staffers and stewards primarily, although that too often falls into the hands of local administrators as well. Only in cases where enforcement of policies has proven to devolve into disputes that the community is unable to resolve by itself, or when the alleged policy violations would have included abuse of advances privileges, should ArbCom be tasked with stepping in to provide enforcement -- and to the best of my knowledge, neither of these two scenarios has thus far required ArbCom intervention, the latest "big event" w/r/t paid editing, the OrangeMoody case, was handled mostly by our Functionary team (which included, IIRC, at least one current Arb, but that's not relevant to ArbCom's scope). To the question whether ArbCom should sanction undisclosed paid editors -- individual admins who are also arbitrators should certainly enforce EnWiki policies whenever necessary, and if there was a good reason for accepting a case then such undisclosed paid editing should be sanctioned just like any other policy violation by parties of said case, but I don't see enforcement of the policies around undisclosed paid editing as a responsibility specific to ArbCom. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

2. In your own words, please explain the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and why its existence is necessary.

4. And what, if any, changes or reforms would you support regarding the structuring and processes of Wikipedia's arbitration system?

   I'll answer it simply: make Arbitrator discussions vastly more transparent, and drop the legalese (aka "Bradspeak") and make remedies/FoF simple, accessible and easy to understand. I also think that dropping the deadline system might turn out to be a good thing -- missed deadlines cause stress and frustration both for drafters and parties, and the lack of deadline means that cases would progress more naturally from one phase to the other when it's ready to. But that is a core change and implementing it carelessly would make one hell of a mess so there would be a lot of required discussions before that even becomes a viable option. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉

2. Seeing as you've already seemed to acknowledge your Reddit account I'm assuming you actually said this [1]. In fact, strongly agreed. So I'm curious where the cut off is as far as possibly inherited disabilities where people should be sterilized by government fiat. Clearly Hitler got it wrong [2], and by your own admission you have bad eyesight, so I'm assuming that's not enough to demand sterilization. So what does?

2. What are your feelings about nominatus interruptus?

   I'll probably earn a trout for answering questions after withdrawing (and perhaps you will as well, for asking), but... dare I say I feel relieved? I never wanted to sit on ArbCom in the first place. I just wanted to deepen the pool of candidates and make sure that we would elect people whom I think will do a better job than myself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉