Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Hawkeye7

I have been a Wikipedia editor for over ten years, with more than 100,000 edits. I have contributed to 76 Featured Articles, 3 featured lists, 117 A class articles, and 290 Good Articles. I have been active as a Military History Project coordinator, being re-elected to a seventh term in September 2019. In this capacity I have assessed articles, closed A class reviews, and occasional written opinion pieces and book reviews for our monthly newsletter, The Bugle. I assist at DYK with reviews and have been involved in the assembly of the prep areas from time to time. I was runner up in the WikiCup in 2013, Military History Project Military Historian of the Year in 2012, and runner-up in 2014 and 2016. I have never been blocked or banned.

I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian Paralympic Committee. I was instructor in four Wikimedia Australia workshops, and an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012 and Rio de Janeiro in 2016. Since then I have continued expanding the Paralympic articles, particularly relating to wheelchair basketball. I have travelled around Australia, and to Thailand, China, Germany, the United States and Canada covering Paralympic sports. I attended Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013 and Esino Laurio in 2016 on scholarships from the Wikimedia Foundation.

I hope that I can provide a voice for content creators on the Arbitration Committee.

I confirm that I will comply fully with the criteria for access to non-public data.

In addition to my main account, I have written and maintained two registered bots, the MilHistBot and FACBot, which are used by the featured article process, and for performing various administrative tasks related to the Military History Project. I also created a third bot account, AussieBot, which has never been used.

• Hawkeye7 (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 2019 candidate: Hawkeye7 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. Let's assume, and quite reasonably so, that there are some policies and guidelines that WP:IAR could never trump under any circumstances. WP:BLP immediately comes to mind, as well as other situations with real-world consequences, such as harassment etc. What policies or guidelines might WP:IAR trump? Specifically, for example, could it trump WP:CONSENSUS? How would you deal with a situation in which you felt the consensus was meaningfully wrong?

   WP:IAR is a pillar and WP:BLP is a policy, so theoretically the former will trump the latter, and indeed any policy or guideline. Unfortunately, our BLP policy does not contain a rationale explaining its purpose. While there is widespread consensus that we should avoid the misuse of Wikipedia to spread false or defamatory information about living persons, and that negative or contentious assertions must be supported by citations to reliable sources, there is no consensus on what you say here, namely that we should exclude information from Wikipedia even where the information is undisputedly true when it would have undesirable real-world consequence. I wrote a Signpost Op-Ed a couple of months back about a case in which a suppression order was ignored by Wikipedians. Legally, the suppression order only applied to Australians, but if the objective of BLP is to avoid bad real-world consequences then following it would seem to be in order, in that publication would potentially preclude a fair trial (impacting the accused) and possibly cause a mistrial (with bad consequences for the victims). However, there was clearly no consensus on this. Since consensus is a policy, an admin cannot override it to enforce another policy like BLP. However, it is worth noting that WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to ArbCom, so if the committee feels that the consensus is meaningfully wrong, it can override it.

2. Hi Hawkeye7, you're a highly competent content creator as demonstrated in your nomination statement and in your mainspace contributions. However, two failed RFAs after desysopping would indicate that the community don't believe you are suitable to be restored to a position where you could delete pages and block other editors. Indeed, the second attempt at re-RFA resulted in far more opposition than the first. Given the position on Arbcom will ordinarily require admin tools plus the conferring of other hats, what assurance can you give us that the various issues those who opposed you in those RFAs have been addressed?

   I am always willing to learn, to improve, and to try to do a better job. At RfA I offered up one of my difficult AfD decisions, but there wasn't much comment on it, so I don't think there was much concern about my deleting pages. Whereas there's always been severe criticism of my content creation efforts, both from other editors and from WMF. I have undertaken to provide more edit summaries - that one really stung me - and to do more routine administrative tasks. I'm currently involved in a major cleanup of a Military History Project's backlog. I don't think service on ArbCom requires a lot of hats, and I don't think that they include the admin bit, but any that are conferred are purely temporary, while in office, and only to be used for official ArbCom business.

Ok, I'm not clear why you avoided mention of your admin status, the desysop, and the subsequent two failed RFAs in your nomination statement. I'm looking for openness in our Arbs and I'm certainly looking to put my trust in them, no matter how white/black their past actions have been. You seem to have avoided even bringing that up in your nomination statement, which is an approach. It's certainly your choice. It wouldn't be my approach. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?

   The decision was a poor one. There was no prior attempt at dispute resolution at ANI or anywhere else on the specific issue at hand, much less the overall topic area. Nor was these agreement among the arbitrators as to what the nature of the case they were accepting was, or indeed whether it was amenable to intervention by ArbCom at all.

   I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. Couldn't agree more. As I already said below, I would never have voted for the sanctions, which were ill-considered and unjust. ArbCom's venture into content disputes proved that they are no good at it.

2. I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   First, let me say that I would have recused myself from that case. This doesn't mean that I had any conflict of interest; but I feel that there is far too much reluctance to recuse. I think that it is important to not just do the right thing, but be seen to be doing the right thing. But it is not my intention to dodge the question either. There are some weighty issues in your short statement. In case of future problems, the community can get back to arbcom. That is not acceptable. I would be looking for assurances that would not happen. As to a new RfA right now seems to offer no fair chances that points to recurrent problems with our RfA process, which is flawed, but also with putting someone in a situation where ArbCom puts their thumb on the RfA scale in the form of vague allegations.

4. Thank you, understand recusal. About the vague allegations: same case, same thread, subheader LouisAlain. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?

   I would wish LouisAlain a speedy recovery. Good translators are hard to find, and particularly valuable members of our community.

5. Thank you for the good wishes! I am happy that he's editing again, but you may have seen that two more of the translated articles were sent to draft space yesterday, just because the other Wikipedias have different systems of referencing. Must be frustrating. - The question here, though, was rather if you see saw anything in Fram's conduct there which would be a reason to desysop. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   That must be very frustrating. There's nothing presented to indicate that the deletion of LouisAlain's articles was out of process. No grounds for a desysop.

7. Thank you! Which remedy would you have supported then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   No remedy, as the articles were created and deleted in good faith. It should be possible to salvage the articles by rewriting them, but only an admin can read the deleted text. I had a situation once where a series of articles on air bases were deleted, and I had the deleting admin restore them to just the infoboxes and references, allowing new articles to be written.

9. Remedy meant those proposed in the decision.

   I would concur with what GorillaWarfare said.

2. In your candidate statement, you highlight that I have never been blocked or banned, pointing out the absence of (supposed) negatives about yourself. Yet you did not mention this negative piece of information - that you were desysopped by ArbCom in 2012 for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Given the lack of balance in your statement regarding yourself (choosing to mention the absence of negatives but not mentioning the presence of negatives), how can voters be sure you will be transparent and impartial in your decisions?

   This statement was merely a pro forma in response to the the eligibility criteria, which says that An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who... not subject to active blocks or site-bans". ArbCom issued a clarification in 2014 stating that I am a member of the community in good standing. As to transparency, this is an key issue facing ArbCom, and one that is very important to me. The committee asks people to trust them, and that is necessary, but a great deal more good faith could be engendered by publishing rationales for decisions, conducting more business on-wiki, and not using off-wiki means when they are not necessary. I think this would improve the situation in those cases when the case truly must be decided in camera.

4. For this: ArbCom issued a clarification in 2014 stating that I am a member of the community in good standing - could you provide a link? Thank you.

   [1]

6. Thanks for the link. So, in December 2014, you sought to be restored to being a editor in good standing with the community by having the verdict against me vacated by ArbCom. However, the verdict against you was not vacated in the end (closed as "The only way for Hawkeye7 to regain his adminship is via a new RfA"). There were four clear opposes to vacating the verdict by Salvio, Beeblebrox, NativeForeigner, Worm, and three apparent opposes by GorillaWarfare, Fuchs and AGK. It was unclear whether the remaining Arbs supported vacating the remedy. As for restoring you to "good standing", only one Arb, Carcharoth, explicitly discussed "good standing" (regain their good standing through their own efforts (as Hawkeye7 has done, IMO)). Clearly Carcharoth was speaking for himself and not ArbCom. As such, do you still think your statement ArbCom issued a clarification in 2014 stating that I am a member of the community in good standing is accurate?

   I concede that my memory was inaccurate; but the upshot was that I was indeed permitted to run for ArbCom.

2. When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?

   Wow, what a creative suggestion. Per WP:AC/DS: Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics ie articles. There is no remit for a broad application of discretionary sanctions, and I doubt if the committee would authorise a roving commission. If a particular topic area is a prime target for paid editing activity though, DS could be authorised for that area.

4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?

   At work I use a 2FA product called Duo, which works quite well. If WMF thinks the 2FA is the way to go, then I'll use it, but I don't think that forcing the adoption of software solutions on WMF is within the authority of ArbCom.

2. If you had been on the committee at the time they issued their open letter to the WMF Board, would you have signed it? Why or why not?

   I think so. It seems very reasonable, and obviously a great deal of care went into its drafting. It recognises the role of T&S, while enunciating the principle of a community devoted to building an encyclopaedia that is governed by the people who build it, which I endorse.

2. What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?

   So many to choose from... like someone asking me what the best part of my vacation was. ArbCom certainly has some inherent problems, but I'd like to single out one that is fixable to a considerable extent, and that is the problem of transparency. In its nature ArbCom has to deal with some difficult and controversial matters, and some things have to be conducted behind closed doors. Nonetheless, there is much that is fixable. When ArbCom is discussing a matter, a note to that effect could be published. There have been multiple instances in recent times when a simple note to that effect could have headed off some needless trouble. There is increasing use of off-wiki discussion and communication in cases where there is no requirement for it, off-wiki communication having become a bad habit. This should be curtailed. Evidence in cases should be restricted to what is presented on the cases pages. If an individual Arb has some additional evidence, that should either be presented or discarded. Where reasonable requests are made for an Arb to recuse, that should be respected. And as to Arbs sending private emails to people involved in cases, this practice must cease. An ArbCom clerk should prepare a monthly report on activity for the Signpost. I'd also like each case request in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests to have its own page so you can find things.

4. In the case of GLAM involving the Australian paralymics movement, it seems clear that a great deal of money was spent by the Australian committee on travel benefits and presumably other expenses, with an intent on their part to impact the content of Wikipedia. How do these sort of expenditures to impact content differ in any meaningful way from other forms of paid editing, in which money is spent on Wikipedians to impact the content of Wikipedia? When you edited on matters of concern to the Australian paralympic committee, did you identify potential conflict of interest on each talk page? Did you ever invite scrutiny over your work from other Wikipedians with no financial connection to the committee? If not, why not?

   Funding was not just from the WMF Australia, but from WMF as well. The project was discussed with the Foundation in San Francisco in 2012 and with Sue Gardner in Brisbane in 2013. I received funding from the Foundation for travel expenses as recently as 2018. There was always oversight at that level. The project has been very successful, creating well over 1,000 articles, with aggregate page views running into the millions. Articles are identified as being created or upgraded as part of the project with a template on the talk page, although that is mainly so I can run off statistics. Activities were documented in GLAM newsletters. As with all articles, they can be edited by anyone. There were many intangible benefits. In Australia at least, the project has given Wikipedia visibility at the highest levels of government. I also think that the presence of Wikimedia representatives among the media contingent has contributed to an altered our perception among the mainstream media. While other factors are at play here, the difference in attitude between 2012 and 2016 was obvious. The GLAM concept was well-established long before I arrived on the scene in 2012, and our group worked with other GLAM groups such as the one at the British Museum, so I did not think about it much. To my mind, GLAM work differs from paid editing in three crucial respects. Firstly, as already mentioned, it is sanctioned by WMF. Secondly, we had no restrictions on content. It was not a marketing exercise, but an historical one, in conjunction with the writing of a book and the collection of museum artefacts, with funding from the Australia Council. Thirdly, it has always been a money spending rather than a money earning exercise for me, that never comes close to recovering my personal expenses.

   Thank you. Carrite (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. One more for ya... My understanding of the current state of the rules (through a discussion at Wikipediocracy that was settled with links to the relevant decisions at WP) is that if a non-administrator were to win a seat on Arbcom, they would not automatically be granted the administrative toolbox, including in particular the ability to read deleted content. To gain this ability — clearly important in decision of a large percentage of behavioral cases — one would need to run the gauntlet in a separate RFA. So, assuming this is correct (and I believe it is correct): If elected, will you run for RFA again, or will you attempt to serve without the ability to read deleted content? And if you do run again, what will you be saying to the community to convince them to reverse the decision against again granting you tools?

   My understanding is that what you say is correct; winning a seat on ArbCom will not result in the automatic granting of the the administrative toolbox, nor of the so-called advanced permissions of CU and OS, but WMF has stated that it has no objection to doing so. My recollection is that there were some technical problems with the independent grant of CU and OS, which have since been resolved. That leaves the ability to read deleted content. I'm not sure how often it is utilised; it isn't logged, and in my experience (from admins asking me to look at deleted content) admins are not always aware that they are using it. Maybe it can be unbundled; I don't know. I am not running as a backdoor to getting my admin toolkit back. My intent is to work without it at all possible, as I've been doing with varying degrees of success for the last seven years. If required, they can be granted on a temporary case-by-case basis. It is not my intention to run for RFA again. I would be going in saying "I've been elected to ArbCom, please restore my admin status" just a short time after an unsuccessful RFA. I don't think that would be a persuasive argument.

2. In reply to one of Gerda's questions, you said that as an arb you would have recused yourself from the Fram case. You further said that: This doesn't mean that I had any conflict of interest; but I feel that there is far too much reluctance to recuse. I think that it is important to not just do the right thing, but be seen to be doing the right thing. This seems to suggest that some editors would believe you were doing the wrong thing if you did not recuse. What might lead them to such a conclusion? Lepricavark (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Just Fram. I've had multiple encounters with him over the years, mostly at DYK, and I think he would prefer someone with less history with him.

2. Here is a quote from your most recent RFA: I'm a big believer in redemption, second chances, and moving past old disputes, but it appears the candidate isn't. To say that an admin desysopped for cause should "never" get their tools back, and then come here to ask for their tools back after having been desysopped for cause? That shows some stunning lack of self-awareness. A net positive editor, absolutely. A net positive admin? Not from what I've seen. Would you agree with what 28bytes wrote, or would you disagree, and why? --Rschen7754 05:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Something that happened seven years ago is an old dispute; something that happened seven days ago is not. I never said that an admin desysopped for cause should never get their tools back. And I don't agree that a net positive editor would not be a net positive admin, because that would be conceding WMF's point, that we cannot govern ourselves and that it should do the job for us. Am I a believer in redemption, second chances, and moving past old disputes? Yes, I am, and I think my record in this regard is second to none, and if you want to see some examples of this, scroll up the page.

2. Last year, I was the named party in the ham-fisted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, that was brought about as a result of a biased committee not being impartial. The case should've been entitled Infobox 3, but the committee considered it to be too difficult to deal with the infobox problem and instead, made the case exclusively about me - suffice to say, the problem with infobox discussions still exist. The disruption on IB disputes, almost all of the time, is caused by individuals starting RfC after RfC after RfC until they get the answer they want. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility through sheer frustration - we are, after all, only human. Apparantly, the last committee dealt with the "incivility", but we still have the cause, the repeated starting up of infobox discussions and RfCs, as seen on Stanley Kubrick. Is dealing with the cause, in this scenario, more important than dealing with the cause? Cassianto^Talk 17:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   I have always been a big supporter of ArbCom tackling the underlying cause of an issue. It was the centrepiece of my candidacy last time I ran for ArbCom. However, no cases that have been conducted since, particularly the botched German war effort case, fill me with optimism in this regard.

2. There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be treated?

   There is a widespread perception that there are Wikipedia:Unblockables, editors for whom the usual standards of behaviour do not apply. I am not one of them. The term is ironic in the sense that a defining characteristic of Unblockables is often (but not always) a distinguished block log. Thanks to Eric Corbett, there has been an identification of unblockables with prolific content creators, which most of them are not. During the Civility case, ArbCom went out of its way to praise Eric's distinguished content creation record and present it as a reason for extraordinary leniency, while pointedly omitting any mention of my record in this regard. So no, it is certainly not something I recognise. Frequently the treatment accorded to content creators by ArbCom has been shabby.

2. Criticism of arbitration decisions is inevitable. This criticism is often expressed in strong and personal terms. As an arbitrator, how will you respond to criticism, either of you personally or the committee as a whole? Do you think it will it affect your ability to remain objective?

   I'm used to it. It's also part of my personality that I don't like yes-men, and prefer collaborating with people who will give me honest and critical evaluations.

2. Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).

   Providing an explanation is not just common sense, it is policy. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK: Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked.

4. Thanks. To what extent should the WMF follow this wiki's policies when on this wiki?

   While WMF is under no obligation to follow this wiki's policies, however I feel that it should respect them.

2. Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?

   Yes, I believe that is the best thing to do. I is difficult to maintain the appearance of fairness otherwise, especially when deliberations and discussions are not published. (Which, as a rule, they should be.)

4. Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?

   While I understand that some editors will try to evade scrutiny by going to ground, editors have differing real-life commitments; some may not be available all the time, and some may be unexpectedly called away. It's easy for Arbs, who have ample online time (because otherwise they wouldn't have run in the first place), to fall into thinking that everyone has. Given how long it takes for ArbCom to run a case these days, it is hard to make a convincing argument for speeding up proceedings by strictly enforcing time limits.

6. When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?

   Arbitrators should not be offering evidence of their own. If you are trying a case, you should not be involved in it. They should recuse. And yes, in an ArbCom case in which I was involved ArbCom said it had some evidence which they did not present to me to confirm or deny. I used to be pretty sensitive to wild and unsubstantiated claims of conflicts of interest because my contract with the company I worked for specified that there would be no mention of the firm or my work there on any form of social media. (Mainly to prevent insider trading.)

2. Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?

   This AfD close. The article in question was a military air crash sitting uneasily on the edge of WP:AIRCRASH. A lot of very reasonable and well-thought-out policy arguments on both sides covering matters like WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. And is having a locomotive named after one of the one of the victims a form of enduring notability? Clearly there was enough material to create an article, even years twelve after the event, so WP:GNG was satified, and WP:NOT was the issue. There was no consensus on this, and that was my close. A deletion review followed, and the close was upheld.

2. Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?

   I am not an admin, and ceased reading these after my desysop seven years ago. I have continued to be involved in discussions at ArbCom, such as the Fred Bauder case last year.

2. What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?

   Or, as they put it in Life on Mars, does throwing a woman out of a moving car make you a bad bloke? I think it does.

2. How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?

   Groupthink is a recognised psychological phenomenon in which members of a group seeking consensus voluntarily suppress dissenting views. Instead of fostering the free exchange of ideas, consensus-driven groups trade in the familiar and squelch provocative debate. The result is a decision making process by a group that is actually poorer than one that the individuals in it might make. Or, as James Surowiecki put it in The Wisdom of Crowds (p. 203): "if as the saying goes, a camel is a horse produced by a committee, it was undoubtedly made by a committee looking for consensus." I am very familiar with it, as I wrote a paper on it as part of my MBA studies. ArbCom is particularly vulnerable to Groupthink. In his Wikipedia:Final exam for wikilawyers (Question 3), Newyorkbrad cites a series of examples of ArbCom groupthink. MILHIST is not nearly so vulnerable to groupthink as ArbCom because it is larger, welcomes outsiders, continues to entertain dissenting opinions, and, above all, has no imperative, impetus or incentive to reach any form of compromise.

2. Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?

   Absolutely. In the German War Effort case I would certainly have voted against the topic ban on Cinderella157 and not endorsed the two reminders, which are nonsensical. The wisdom of crowds is not the wisdom of Randy in Boise. It is finding subject matter experts in the broader community and encouraging them to work on building the encyclopaedia. Cinderella157 and AuntieRuth are such people and thus are valuable members of our community. Content creators and the high-quality articles need to be protected, not derived.

4. If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [2], [3], [4]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)

2. Comment on your own behavior displayed over here and here.

   Remember the exam paper that we give to high school kids that starts with "Please read all the instructions carefully", and then proceeds with a series of increasingly embarrassing questions? When one of the instructions reads "Do not answer any questions, just write your name in the box at the top of the paper"? Good times. Anyway, all I did was ask if it was possible to review a decision, not to have the decision itself reviewed. In the light of recent decisions that lowered the acceptance threshold. And some people answered the question I asked, and some made fools of themselves.

Thanks, in advance, for your answers. ∯WBG^converse 10:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [5]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?

   Forecasting availability so far ahead can be difficult, as personal circumstances can change, but we seem to have had a bad run in recent times. Unfortunately, as you pointed out in your paper, arbitrator’s activity outside arbitration is not a significant predictor of their activity inside arbitration, whether taken as a total sum of their edits, or when the edits are split by namespace. Thus, we don't have a good way of evaluating new Arbitrators, although for existing ones, arbitrators’ activity within the arbitration space is a very solid predictor both for proposing and casting votes. A telling point you made though is that the less active arbitrators are more likely to provide dissenting opinions, counteracting the groupthink phenomenon discussed above, which too often leads to poor decision making.

2. In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?

   The unsuccessful run last time had little impact, and I don't expect that not winning a seat will change much this time either. On the other hand, the recent failed RfA run has left very little that I can do. I do have one last major project, though, the Tokyo Paralympics in 2020.

2. Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?

   Yes, that is definitely a proposal that would get behind. I was thinking along similar lines myself in my reply to Carrite above. There have been several cases in recent times that might have had less fallout - or been avoided entirely - if this had been in place.

2. Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?

   A noticeable trend has been ArbCom accepting less cases each year. At the same time, some of its poorest decisions have come from accepting cases where community processes have not been exhausted, or even where the editors concerned have been moving to negotiating their own solutions. Before accepting a case I would want to be convinced in the first instance that other dispute resolution processes have proven to be ineffective. Secondly, I would need to be convinced that ArbCom intervention would be capable of achieving a resolution, and not just kicking the can down the road, posting a series of platitudes without addressing the actual issue, or making a bad situation worse.

2. Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?

   All of the above. Over time, ArbCom has passed responsibility for many matters, including child protection, legal issues, and threats of violence, over to the WMF's Legal and T&S teams. This has been understandable; but the effect has been that ArbCom and T&S have worked concurrently with overlapping responsibilities. It seems likely that while T&S knew that it was extending its reach, it did not anticipate the strength of the reaction that it received. Clearly though, this will not be the end of it. WMF is an organisation, and wither it was around in the beginning or not, it will be around to the end, and we will not. It cannot allow a toxic culture to develop on Wikipedia, as that threatens its own existence, which is tied to that of the project. It cannot allow Wikipedia to become a 4Chan, even it it wants to, because it will come under increasing pressure from outside forces. So if the community wants to be self-governing, it has to demonstrate that it can handle that responsibility, and it has to live up to the ideal of a community run by the people who create the content. If ArbCom wants to maintain its place, wants to have a continuing role, then it has to do more than just wring its hands and deplore the way that some members of the community tolerate unacceptable behaviour. In retrospect, the move to an elected ArbCom has not worked out as well as hoped. It created a tension between the Arbs role of representing the community and representing the people that elected them, while it failed to create a committee that was representative of that community. How can it be that only 1,150 of the 138,000 editors who contribute regularly are admins but 100 per cent of ArbCom members are?

2. In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?

   So far, efforts to shorten the delays have not been effective. I think this again goes to the lack of transparency. We don't know if ArbCom are working on the case or if they are on vacation.

2. What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?

   ArbCom's role is to deal with serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. ArbCom has no role in the enforcement of the Terms of Use. The Terms of Use are set by WMF and their enforcement is a matter for WMF. Editors are not employees of WMF. While undisclosed paid editing is an issue for the community with respect to content, that too is outside ArbCom's remit.

2. What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?