Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Lourdes/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Shrike

There are currently ongoing ARCA could you state your opinion about the issue [[1]].
Hi Shrike. I've read the full text of the issue, with much interest your participation, and the overall context surrounding the case. I believe that while the case concerns one of the most conflicted areas in the project, the issue being brought forward for amendment is quite relevant. I notice a significant number of editors supporting KingsIndian's contention, as well as a few whose stand is unclear. The attempt by the committee to maintain balance between preventing disruption and at the same time avoiding unnecessary blocks on good faith editing seems to have gotten stuck on a finer line than required. 1RR is a tricky street where even editors who regularly edit and may know of the restriction, may commit mistakes unknowingly. If that leads to an immediate block, that would be a most unfortunate situation. An alternative could be to let uninvolved administrators use common sense and personal discretion to differentiate between good faith mistakes; but that would lead to an extremely arbitrary implementation of blocks. Probably a better alternative could be to ensure that post the DS notification, good faith editors are given an opportunity to self-revert, failing which action could be taken. I would be uncomfortable placing a block on a long-term editor without considering the fact that they may have made an honest mistake in crossing 1RR.

Question from Cinderella157

Arb policy makes a requirement for transparency and Arb cases make an explicit statement of intent to reach a "fair" decision.
1. What are, in your opinion, the "principles and spirit" (per WP:5P5) that underpin the policy and statement?
2. The policy in particular, requires "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". Please comment on this duty as it might apply to you (say, as a drafting arbitrator) and the committee as a whole, in respect to how this duty is discharged (noting the underlying principles), particularly where the evidence presented might be in conflict.
3. Do you consider that this duty has been complied with and what might you do to improve compliance?

Cinderella157 (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. In my initial year(s), I was stuck on the mentality that each policy should be read and implemented by the word. My arguments at various discussions where I initially participated reflected this orientation – which, I subsequently understood, was faulted. I realized that much of editing regularly requires a common sense approach than a severe and non-negotiable adherence to rules, more so as policies and guidelines will never be able to cover the universe of editorial interactions. This is more so with ArbCom's orientation. In some cases, the fact that the ArbCom gets involved has been a result of general policies and guidelines not being able to resolve the issue to satisfactory effect at the other venues. While procedural requirements have to be followed – and I can understand that allows sensible discussion during cases and a logical move towards exploring alternative decisions/results – what is more important is to view each issue with common sense. 2. Detailed explanations lay the foundation for the community and specifically the involved parties to understand the decisions. As the drafting arbitrator has to limit themselves to the evidence and the involved parties, they probably have the most critical role, as the assessment of such evidence requires an extensive amount of effort into understanding the various evidence considered, the weight given to each evidence, and the relevance of the submitted evidence to resolving the root cause of the issue. 3. This can be answered on a case by case basis probably. I've noticed inputs from the committee members to the drafting arbs during cases; this could probably be an area that could be encouraged formally.
There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very broad set of questions. In a recent RfC I initiated, one lesson I learnt was that incivility has to be assessed based on the background and context of the issue. Therefore, to respond to your queries appropriately would require an understanding of either actual diffs or the contexts in which these hypothetical situations are occurring.
In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I've noticed, word extensions are provided fairly to parties so that's probably not going to be a sticky issue. Sizable evidence needs to be sifted through, so that too can't be an excuse. The issue is not as simple as this. You're right in that it is absolutely tough to catch civil POV pushing. But the reason for that, in my opinion and review, is that it requires multiple editors or at least one very hard working editor to understand the issue, to compile an argument for the ArbCom to accept the case and to follow it up over the subsequent weeks, providing diffs/evidence and taking the case to its conclusion, which also may not be what the filing editor expected. From issues of outing the accused editor to ensuring that the woods are not missed for the trees, it's an absolutely tough job for the filing editors. And in some cases, editors simply lose interest. I've noticed one civil POV pushing case in the past few years where, because none was forthcoming, the ArbCom had to repeatedly request any neutral editor to work up a summary of the issue to enable them to reach a conclusion. With paid editing disclosures, assessment of the pov pushing will become tougher – for example, paid editors would be expected to push their clients' positive material; how would one assess such situations, will be interesting to see.

Questions from Softlavender

Hi Lourdes, you have been an administrator a little over eight months. What consensus determination (closing complex ANI/AN threads, closing RfCs, closing complex AfDs, etc.) have you engaged in on Wikipedia during that time? Softlavender (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed some ANI/AN discussions but can't call them complicated; some examples are Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#DRV Review, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Standard offer unblock appeal from User:MassiveYR, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Topic ban, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#The Rambling Man and DYK, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#User:GiantSnowman, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#Editors removing !votes at AFD on their own accord. I've closed many AfDs, some of which may be termed not straightforward, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrightStar Care or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browser engines (typography support) (which led to a discussion at User_talk:Lourdes#Bizarre close?.
What sanctions-enacting work have you engaged in on Wikipedia during your eight months as administator? E.g. enacting a sanction as is your prerogative as an administrator, based either on a noticeboard discussion or on your own observation of an editor's behavior? Softlavender (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. While examples like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive993#Persistent WP:CIR issue can give you insight on my engagement, the fact is that in my time as an admin, I've only implemented voluntarily accepted editing restrictions while resolving edit warring disputes, for example here (search for user Krishendrix78) or here (search for user Harshrathod50)
Other than the RfC you filed fairly recently, what dispute-resolution work have you engaged in on Wikipedia during your eight months as an administrator? Or, if necessary, more broadly, what dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys have you engaged in during your eight months as an administrator?
I've been involved significantly at the edit warring noticeboard resolving disputes, and sometimes at AN/ANI. Examples (search for "Lourdes") can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive377, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive370, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive375, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive373, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive374, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive988, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive993, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive982, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985
What has or have been the focus(es) of your administrative activity? That is, what admin actions (actions that only administrators may perform) have you performed?
In the time that I've retaken my bit, I've dwelled for some time at the edit warring noticeboard, attempting to resolve disputes, undertaking a few blocks; I've also been at the AfDs, closing a few delete discussions; I've also frequented a few edit filters, blocking accounts that are shortlisted by those specific edit filters. I guess those have been the broad focus areas of my admin actions.
You do not have a userpage, and your user talkpage does not have a table of contents. Both of those issues inhibit accessibility, transparency, and intercommunication, all of which are paramount for an administrator. Would you be willing to remedy those two issues?
I have an introduction page that is lined at the top right of my user page; I can convert that into my user page, no problems with that. I should of course be having a toc on my talk page. Will get that done. Thanks.

Questions from Collect

Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?
No, opening a case simply implies a deeper and extensive review of the issue in question.
If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?
In the particular example you provide, yes. I've noticed at least one case where one of the accused parties had to request an arb to recuse because they had had extensive talk page discussions. The arb recused immediately, although begrudgingly. So, yes.
Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?
These are very broad questions; my broad responses would be: No. Yes. Yes. However, context matters.

Question from Gerda Arendt

Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?
If the question pertains to the issue of turning a blind eye to incivility under the clarion call to continue editing, broadly, no. That is not what an inclusive editorial community should strive for. Ignoring such behaviour is what leads the community and ArbCom to waste more time on the same editor, aka Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others with the editor banned for six months.

Question from Bishonen

Lourdes, when you posted this at ANI in April, I responded and complained of the contemptuous way you spoke to Certified Gangsta, and specifically of the link you used in the sentence "... we all can move on without wasting our time on your explanation", where you piped "explanation" to Persecutory delusion, implying that any explanation the user might post would probably only illustrate their persecutory delusion. Certified Gangsta is a user who has both caused and suffered quite a bit of trouble at Wikipedia — what we call a problem user. You replied to me: "Sure. I actually expected this to be a bit on the edge. Struck." In preference to removing the link, you then struck through the word explanation (creating the strange sentence "we all can move on without wasting our time on your.")[2] It's nice that you listened to me, I suppose, though the minimal trouble you took to improve your post is less than impressive — to this day, the link to Persecutory delusion remains in the archive. But wrt your original edit, the first thing I look for in an arb is that they treat everybody with respect. Especially that they treat the powerless and the problematic with respect. Do you yourself think you're ready for arbship, since any remarks "a bit on the edge" (such as commenting on a user's mental health, or having a giggle at their expense with a piped link ) would have considerable weight in that position? Bishonen | talk 16:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bish, in short, it was a mistake to link it. I am not sure why I did it then, but when you pointed out the issue with my link, I recall I removed the same post-haste and kicked myself for linking it in the first place. I realize that I'm neither perfect nor can ever hope to reach perfection in ensuring that I don't ever communicate words that may be disrespectful. But it's a continuous learning cycle and I promise to strive and ensure that such instances don't occur, and if they do, I'll attempt to correct them at the soonest. That's the honest best I will push for, irrespective of whether I am or not elected to the committee.

Question from Mz7

For much of 2018, you declined to take up the administrator user right, stating that you were too busy in real life to commit to administrative work. I realize it's never possible to predict this completely accurately, but as of now, how much free time do you expect to have to commit to arbitration work?
Well, I'm much freer now as some contracts have ended; I also now have a good agency and a manager who takes care of a lot of stuff I was managing on my own. So I would be able to commit around 30 minutes to a couple of hours daily; more if required during case progression.

Questions from Carrite

Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Wikipedia content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Wikipedia Sucks!, Wikipedia Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Wikipedia or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Carrite. Hope you are well. No, I don't read content or participate at any of these venues. I have less understanding of these sites so I am not in a position to comment on whether they're wholly negative or otherwise.

The Wikimedia foundation began issuing site bans (“SanFranBans”) of Wikipedians deemed unacceptable for participation several years ago, beginning by making a case for such exclusions on child protection grounds, but gradually disposing of inconvenient individuals for a range of other transparently obvious reasons. These exclusions are made by one or a very few individuals with no oversight and no process for appeal. Do you feel that this growing trend of WMF permanently banning individuals from participation on all Wikimedia projects is problematic, or is this intervention beneficial? Do you feel that each and every ban so far implemented by San Francisco has been justified? Do you feel that San Francisco banning individuals for reasons beyond child protection or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Wikipedia's discipline committee? Carrite (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of these bans are taken at the whims and fancy of one person. Or that they are implemented because of frivolous reasons. I would expect these bans being administered for reasons that affect the whole of Wikipedia, and not just the English Wikipedia, which is where the ArbCom has its purview. To that extent, I don't have any issues with these bans; not unless reliable information is shared to the contrary.

Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peacemaker67

Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution or dramaboard action that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?
I believe the ArbCom here ended taking up a content issue, while it could have simply focused on the personal attacks issue. I think the ArbCom itself realized this in their general conclusion, quoting: "for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute... For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute."

Questions from David Tornheim

You initiated this this RfC asking 'Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?’ Could you share any thoughts you had on the experience? (e.g. Was it effective in accomplishing any goals? Were participants and commentators civil to each other and to you? Did it go how you imagined? Is there anything to be learned from it?)
My aim was simply assessing community consensus. Participants were more or less civil; some of them probably humorously chose to play the term to the galleries. But overall the discussion was quite interesting. The close statement of the RfC summates my learning pretty well. I thanked the closing editor at User talk:Mz7#Lovely close; DGG's comment at the section satisfied me considerably. That's probably all there's to it.
You seem to have a particular interest in civility. What might you bring to ArbCom and to the community in making Wikipedia a more civil editing environment?
I don't have any interest particularly greater in civility than my interest in advancing the project. Our current policies and guidelines do well to guide our editors on what constitutes a civil editing environment. I really don't believe that I'll be bringing anything new to ArbCom in this area.
I have heard many editors and admins complain about significant problems with WP:AN/I in handling disputes. Do you feel WP:AN/I has major problems? If so, can you speak to them? As an ArbCom member would you handle some disputes in a way different than is typical of WP:AN/I? As a member of ArbCom can you foresee a role in fixing any endemic problems?
Every desk has its characteristics and the community has developed its method of handling those characteristics. I wouldn't label these characteristics as problems. However, if you believe some characteristic is a problem, feel free to point it out and perhaps I can shed more light on it. The ArbCom does not handle disputes akin to the AN/ANI. And I'm not going to propose any new solution to fixing any ANI problem if I were to be elected to ArbCom. (David, I hope these answers don't sound rude; I'm trying to be as straightforward as possible)
What is your opinion about use of ad hominems?
In which context?

During any dispute. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable to use pejorative labels of other editors such as climate-change-denier, anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, etc., (especially without diffs) to discredit them in a dispute that has nothing to do with the topic under consideration?
Broadly, no. If you were to give the exact context, perhaps I could give a better response.
According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain.
I don't frequent Britannica, David. So I wouldn't know there inclusion criteria. I've not dabbled on the article on acupuncture, and neither do I know the topic personally. All I can say is that if the consensus of editors is what it is, there's not much I can assert on whether it's right or wrong.
The U.S. National Institute of Health explains Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Health here. Is it appropriate for our articles to describe these treatments in WP:Wikivoice as pseudoscience? Is it appropriate to use Stephen Barrett's work and publication in Quackwatch as a primary source to discredit such treatments rather than publication in highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine?
Again, as I've answered above, as a content matter, I'm neither acquainted with these treatments, nor have understanding of Stephen Barrett. As I quite frequently mention on the Help desk to both experienced and non-experienced editors, the decision on such queries should be dependent on talk page consensus, or even rsn consensus. I don't believe I'm capable to qualify this issue with a positive or negative statement.
Consider a controversial topic where two polarized groups of editors have strongly differing opinions on content, and one group regularly takes members of the other group to WP:AN/I to have them topic banned or indefinitely blocked—-not because of behavior that actually violates policy—-but primarily because the accusing group prefers not to deal with the "disruption" of editors who disagree with them on content. If members of the accusing group have sufficient control and influence at AN/I (from AN/I regulars, including both commentators and sympathetic admins), then that group can systematically eliminate all editors of the opposing group who disagree with them.
Do you believe this is going on? If so, does it serve our core policy of WP:NPOV that only editors from one side of a controversy are permitted to edit the topic? If it is going on, and the dispute comes to ArbCom, how would you handle it—-especially if ArbCom does not address content?
To answer your questions in sequence: 1. I don't know if this is going on or not. 2. I can't comment unless I know of any specific case. 3. If such a systematic elimination is going on, it does not serve our NPOV policy, but my answer is a broad one that should be construed as being the specific response to each case. 2. If such a dispute comes to ArbCom, I would probably assess it on the grounds of the petition. Placed as a content issue, I won't accept the case. Placed as a disruption issue with clear evidence that the community has not been able to address – probably yes. Again, this is a broad answer and not meant to be construed as a one and final response.
It is often asserted that ArbCom cannot rule on content. I assume that means it will not decide specifically what should be in an article. But what if part of a dispute has to do with allegations that an editor(s) is lying about content in a source(s), using contradictory or double-standards as to what qualifies as WP:RS in the topic area, preferring inferior sources over superior sources, preferring outdated sources to current sources, dismissing high quality sources that articulate views the editor(s) does not want in the article, and other behavior that create bias in an article in violation of WP:NPOV. Do you believe ArbCom could handle such an issue? How about this case? Would you as an Arb be willing to look at a source’s content to verify whether an editor was or was not lying or misrepresenting the source's content? In sum, would you be willing to see if there are some serious sourcing issues?
Broadly, no. The community has well-defined procedures to handle such an issue.

Question from Rschen7754

Serving as an arbitrator often leads to 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. Is this something that you are prepared to handle if elected? Rs chen 7754 04:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had due understanding of this before I applied.

Questions from Nihlus

You have only held you administrator rights for a month at this point with you only using your tools a handful of times. Your one month has been marred with controversy surrounding you throwing your newly found weight around and threatening to block a long-term editor, proceeding to open up a controversial RFC in order to validate the threats you made in the aforementioned discussion, edit warring when you wanted to advertise your controversial RFC despite multiple people at the time disagreeing with it's posting on that template, and then completely ignoring the concerns of others when wanting to further advertise your RFC. Given the nature of Arbcom and all your recent controversy, do you believe that you have the ability to fully participate in lengthy cases when you do not get your way or encounter members of the committee who disagree with you? Nihlus 06:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
Given your attempts to quickly enforce WP:CIVIL to an extent beyond its scope, do you intend to utilize ArbCom in order to expand the scope of WP:CIVIL when a civility case is brought up? Nihlus 06:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No.
Who has final authority on the issue of WP:CIVIL: the arbitration committee, administrators, or the community? Nihlus 06:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the issue and the context.

Questions from Oshwah

Oshwah, other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?
It was only recently that I gave comments to support candidates in the checkuser/oversighter positions. You were probably one of the candidates I supported. While I supported you and others as I found them trustworthy, what I should probably additionally look for, is empathy and commitment to prevent disruption to the project. Of course, as others have said, they should be excellent communicators, absolutely trustworthy, have a superlative understanding of our privacy clauses; but I think empathy and commitment could be the tipping points that could move the good to great. I hope that makes sense.

Question from Feminist

How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?
Feminist, one way could be by having a straightforward banner for outsiders when they visit Wikipedia, that invites them to a standard workshop giving them standard and user friendly inputs on what Wikipedia is. I struggled when I started here; so do others. I spend some time at the Help desk doing the same thing. But outsiders might not be able to even reach the Help desk. That's why I believe probably one strategy could be to motivate them by displaying a banner leading to the workshop.

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. I am rehashing most of my 2015 questions because I don't think that these issues have been resolved over the past three years. Enjoy!

Current Disputes and Cases

What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
Guerillero, it's something similar to the 1-x rule in probability equations. If not banning someone from the project will ensure in continued disruption to the project, that would be the standard to ban someone from the project. Yet, I have to accept that there are Arbcom cases I have witnessed where the egregious behavior occurred some years ago, and the editor is now contributing productively – when he has been pulled up for past edits and then been banned from the project. That's an absolutely fine line which I still don't know how to assess. Perhaps experience would give me more understanding.
Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way, shape, or form. At one time, a remedy called 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?
Well, you asked for a creative way, so here it is. Traffic violators are sometimes made to see videos that educate them on the issues that occur due to their mis-driving. We could probably work up something like a civility media kit that an editor is instructed to go through to understand why civility helps. Of course, if the incivility is repetitive, then there are generally no creative ways to handle the issue, but the standard tried and tested measures.
Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?
I have to admit, I've been a beneficiary of this effect on more times than one. I was first asked this by Guy Macon on my talk page. Yes, it exists, to varying extents. It's tough to fix the issue, and I think it requires a change in the community culture rather than anything else. Probably, references to the Super Mario effect repetitively whenever such cases pop up may engender, gradually though, such a change. I know, this sounds like an escapist solution, but this is something similar to what referring to IAR has done within the community. The first step towards resolving a problem is to accept the problem exists; and publicizing it may actually start the process to get the community involved.
Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
Absolutely. Admonishments and warnings, when appropriately given, provide benchmarks (to the concerned editor) for improvement or (to the Arbcom/AE/community) for future action when such warnings have not been heeded to.

Insider Baseball

Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
If there is a better alternative, I can re-assess my answer. But in my opinion, the workshop provides a more-or-less transparent and coordinated method to discuss and develop the possible remedies and enforcement based on the principles and findings. I've noticed that the community's involvement on the talk pages of such workshops is sometimes more productive than probably the action on the actual page.

Question from Amanda

If there was a block appeal to ArbCom by email for an indefinitely blocked user for spamming or BLP violations, and you were the one to reply to the user, how would you handle it? Would you discuss the block on the list first?
DeltaQuad, I've never been on ArbCom, so don't know if there are any IAR protocols that may exist. But I wouldn't reply to the user unless it has been discussed with the committee. I can assume that if the editor has been blocked by an administrator and not by ArbCom, the initial line of action would be to recommend that the editor follow the standard procedures of appealing a block. If the block has been an ArbCom action though, then I can probably expect that the user's block appeal would be scrutinized by the committee for acceptance of the actions that led to the block, for evidence that the issue would not continue in the future; also assessed would probably be the work that the editor has done in the meanwhile on other Wikimedia projects; the overall possibility of further disruption that may be caused by the editor, if unblocked; and a common sense understanding of the community's/wikimedia's stand on the editor, if they were to be allowed back.
Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.
I think the recent Rfc that I initiated on civility was where I disagreed with the majority of the community and probably took the unpopular route.
Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?
Yes, if that's meant for the members of the committee, then it should be read.
Admin socking is a rare area ArbCom has the remit to deal with. If your brought a case of admin socking, are you willing to go through the investigatory process and potentially vote to desysop an admin? Especially if your met with silence (or a lack of a defense) from the admin?
The simple answer is yes, as long as I'm not involved in the issue. Sometimes, silence or lack of defense are preferred by editors, when they simply wish to avoid the weeks' long exercise and when the result seems obvious. Of course, if there are unavoidable issues due to which the admin could not respond, leeway can be provided to extend the time to reply. But an utter lack of response is no excuse to not take action against the concerned administrator.
How familiar are you with the privacy policy and access to non-public data policy? What is one part you find interesting about one of them and why?
If familiarity refers to the number of times I've read the privacy policy, it may not be enough. I've realized that it takes multiple, and multiple more, times of reading and understanding to grasp the import of why a policy has been made, its ramifications to various stakeholders and its various interpretations. The one part I find interesting about the policy is the transparency. I probably would applaud the Foundation in ensuring that they've kept all their cards on the table – at the same time, giving independence to the editors to choose the level of privacy they prefer.

Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question by K.e.coffman

With the rise of far-right and hate groups online, are you concerned that editors espousing such beliefs may try (or are already attempting) to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda? Why or why not? If yes, what role do you think ArbCom could play in counteracting their influence on Wikipedia? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman, propaganda is something many factions, and not just far-right or hate groups, use Wikipedia for. I don't think ArbCom's role is to act unilaterally to find out ways to reduce the effect of such propaganda mongering. Yes, if cases concerning such issues are brought up to the ArbCom after appropriate procedures in dispute resolution have failed, then the committee needs to act judiciously.

Questions from User:Smallbones

Could you discuss your general philosophy toward enforcing our rules on undisclosed paid editing? Another candidate has said that our rules on UPE are weak, but the terms of use are quite specific: UPE is prohibited. What level of "proof" is required before you'd ban somebody for paid editing? Do admins need to follow these rules, or should they be held to a higher standard?
Smallbones, let me answer each of your specific queries in sequence. My general philosophy is zero tolerance on undisclosed paid editing. To be honest, I don't think disclosed paid editing is something that works well; but disclosure at least ensures that all edits of the concerned editor are liable to be scrutinized much more. What level of proof is required before an editor should be banned for paid editing? Well, I wouldn't ban anyone for paid editing, as long as it is disclosed and it follows our editing policies and guidelines. If you meant "undisclosed paid editing", then one would base the case on diffs purely, at the same time balancing outing concerns, and building the case for outright promotional and coi editing rather than undisclosed paid editing. Do admins need to follow these rules? Yes, absolutely. Should they be held to a higher standard? Yes. Access to tools provides admins the ability to do many things that need not be necessarily logged (see deleted edits, view private filters, understand title blacklists, and...) which can give undue advantage if the admin were a paid editor. So, yes.
This summer I sent a private complaint to arbcom about an administrator who had very obviously inserted material from one of his employer's press releases into the article about the company without making a COI or Paid Editing disclosure. The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI. I was not informed about how the proceedings were being conducted, or who actually voted on the decision, or why the admin was not considered to be a paid editor, or even why he did not have to declare his COI. I was informed in a very short email signed by a single arb when the decision had been made, but there was very little information in the email. My request for clarification didn't result in any clarification. I understand you can't comment on the case itself, but can you comment on how such a case should be conducted?
I think I understand where you're coming from. While I would love that transparency and constant communication with the affected parties should form the backbone of even such email-led requests, the ArbCom in some cases deals with private and personal information that it may not find appropriate to disclose. Perhaps the only part where I might recommend change could be a better response. But really, not knowing the actual dynamics of the case, leads me to a grey area where my answer may not be what you're expecting.

Questions from Hijiri88

What is your opinion on the essay WP:CPUSH, and do you think ArbCom should take special care in handling the kind of cases it is describing in the future?
Hijiri88, this is one of the toughest kind of cases to handle. I mentioned this in one of the answers above. Such cases test the competence of the community and assessing committee members to the hilt, in not missing the wood for the trees. And the fact that it is so tough for the community to bring this up to the ArbCom (because it takes committed editors to compile the evidence that may span over months), adds to the confounding problem. The ArbCom has handled commendably such cases in the past. So I don't know what additional special care would be required. But yes, it's probably the community that needs help more than the ArbCom in identifying such cases.
Do you agree with this definition of "hounding", and the additional comment DGG left during ArbCom's !voting on it, particularly as it may relate to concerns over another editor's ability to properly read and interpret or concerns that an editor who has plagiarized a lot of text before may do so again? (Please note that this does not relate especially to my specific ArbCom case, nor to anyone involved in it; I just really like the definition as it is clearer than the one that's currently at WP:HOUND, and DGG's comment especially was something that honestly I would have liked to see enshrined in the final decision, and perhaps in any future statements ArbCom may make on the issue.)
You're right. What DGG is referring to is probably not clearly mentioned in the current description (it is broadly described under "various legitimate reasons" and probably under "dispute resolution"); but yeah, a bunch of words could be added that also mention, "to prevent disruption to the project".

Question from Piotrus

Have you read this academic paper on ArbCom? Anything you agree/disagree/find interesting? (Disclaimer: I am the paper's author. I am not looking for pats on the back, but I am genuinely curious if you heard of it, read it, and what do you think of it; feel free to be critical of it, I am interested in your honest opinion on whether such research is useful, not in having my ego stroked). PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me back. TIA.
Piotrus, well, no. I've not read the paper or heard of it. If you send me a copy, I might get back to you on the same.

Question from Beyond My Ken

Is there a specific reason why, at the time that I write this, you have not responded to the last 17 questions posted here? Are you serious about your candidacy in this election? If so, why are you not communicating your thoughts to the members of the community who have taken the time to ask you questions on topics that are important to them?
Beyond My Ken, almost as if to prove me wrong, I had to go on the last stage of my concluded contract. I was planning all this while to answer all queries in one go, which I have done now. I do expect such diversions may come in the future, but I'll manage.

I see now that you haven't edited for two days, so I'll withdraw the question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Zerabat

Why do you want to become an ArbCom arbitrator?
Zerabat, to contribute to the community in a broader and more significant manner. Yes, there are other areas too that I can and shall explore to widen my contributions. This is an initial attempt.
What is ArbCom useful for?
To resolve issues that the community, including its various forums, desks, boards and administrators haven't been able to resolve. Although content disputes are not what the committee handles, some such disputes, being laced with editing incivilities, admin overreach and other behavioural areas, are taken up by the committee.
What is expected from an ArbCom member to do? What shouldn't do?
You probably meant, what is expected for the committee members to do (and not an individual member). What they should not do is to jump standard processes that the community has in place to resolve issues, or to provide their new versions of our policies, or to decide on what material should or not be included in articles. What they should do, when a case is accepted given the conditions above, is to resolve the issues in context in such a manner that they provide relatively long-standing solutions. They do make mistakes, but the community does have the option to request for clarifications and amendments in such cases.
If you are elected, what would you do in the following hypothetical case? You recently become aware of an influx of vandalism-only accounts messing with articles and adding trash to pages. Observing closely you notice all these accounts (more than 100) share more or less the same pattern and were systematically vandalizing since 2011 and cross-wiki. Do you think would be necessary to open a case in ArbCom? Why?
No. There's no need to open an ArbCom case. The community has a process in place to handle such issues and that should be followed.

Another question from Bishonen

Hi, Lourdes, Bishonen again, but I'm putting this question at the bottom since it refers to a batch of questions that have been asked by others after my previous. It's been a week since you answered any questions. I'm assuming that this is not nonchalance on your part, but lack of time. Mz7 asked above if you might be too busy for ArbCom work, since you had applied for adminship but then waited several months before actually accepting the mop.[3] You answered optimistically, on November 14, that RL had kept you busy but you're much freer now.[4] However, it was just a day after giving that reply that you you stopped answering questions on this page, and indeed stopped editing Wikipedia altogether (you have just started again, though not on this page). No other candidate shows a similar pattern. We're well into the voting period, and I'm sure you understand the importance of responding to concerns. In view of this apparent lack of time for answering questions, are you still optimistic about the amount of time you'll be able to commit to ArbCom work? Or will you be the arb who holds up decisions, if you're elected? (Compare also Beyond My Ken's question above.) Bishonen | talk 12:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen, yes I would be (able to commit). I'll request you to read my response to BMK above. Thanks, and sorry, and thanks again.

Question from User:BU Rob13

In the past, the Arbitration Committee's role in dispute resolution had been described as "break[ing] the back[s]" of disputes the community is unable to resolve. Sometimes, this involved taking actions unpopular with the community or actions that were criticized as "draconian". More recently, I would say the Committee has become more hesitant to act unless their actions would have widespread support in the community, especially when those actions affect popular editors (or, less charitably, unblockables). At the center of this is a concern that taking decisive action on a dispute could lead to consequences, but in my experience, the default action of doing nothing often carries consequences as well. Further, doing nothing or taking only minor actions that do not resolve the underlying dispute often narrows the workable options available to the Committee, turning difficult-to-solve disputes into nearly unsolvable disputes. Could you comment on these two general schools of thought and what your approach to arbitration would be? More directly, do you think it is sometimes necessary to take unpopular or draconian actions to "break the back" of a dispute, or should such actions always be avoided?
BU Rob13, if you had a particular case in mind, it would be help in providing a better contextual answer. I believe it's not just the issue of unblockables but the fact that the ArbCom operates in a grey area by its very own definition, and this brings a significant requirement of common sense to view any situation. If the community has not been able to resolve the dispute in question, then the ArbCom does need to "break the back" of the dispute, but with a foresight that sometimes necessitates actions that may seem as being lenient on productive contributors. However, I've rarely noticed that straightforward and repetitive incivility, even by the so-called unblockables, has been met with no action or reduced warnings/action. To your final question, the answer is an obvious yes, but I would hope that common sense is never lost out while such decisions are being made.

Question from User:Grillofrances

What do you think about reverting an edition which provides true information, 100% of the info is based on reliable sources, it's objective, grammatically correct, not offending anybody and useful for the article but it's reverted because a new editor just claims this info is redundant?
Grillofrances, isn't this the basis of most civil, editing disputes at Wikipedia? What seems absolutely necessary to be included in an article, is thrown out by others; and you have to understand that this is why discussions, consensus seeking and the dispute resolution process are so critical to the project. I've authored a few featured material on Wikipedia, and in each one of them, I faced the situation you're mentioning. It's heartbreaking of course, but you need to negotiate, agree to give up some, and take some, and that's how stuff happens. So I don't think what the other editor did by reverting is wrong. Your opinion versus my opinion, doesn't mean either of us is wrong.

Question from User:Ryk72

Discretionary sanctions (DS) now cover more than 30 topic areas (per WP:DSTOPICS).

In determining the "effectiveness" of DS, what factors should be taken into account?
In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?
In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS not been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?
In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been effective in addressing conduct or behavioural issues, but otherwise detrimental to the encyclopedia? If any, in what ways & why?
Other than DS, what measures could ArbCom take in addressing conduct issues? Which, if any, of these alternatives should ArbCom take?
Of which of your contributions to Wikipedia are you most proud? Why?

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite thankful to SilkTork for filling in for me here :D If only you would have answered all the questions from the start. Would have saved quite some time for me; there are a few open queries above too, if you have the time :D Lourdes 03:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! ;-) We could swap places, and answer each other's questions! I'll move over my answers.... SilkTork (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Banedon

There's a new RFAR today. What would your inclinations be (e.g. would you accept/decline, if the evidence is taken at face value, what sanctions [if any] would you apply, etc)? I realize the RFAR is preliminary, so I'm not looking for conclusive decisions, just some idea of how what you think of the dispute.
Banedon, given the evidence at face value, no; I would decline. I realize that some of the current ArbCom members have already made up their mind on Jytdog's actions and their respective proposed resolutions for the same, which seems odd to do right at the start. If they were to accept the case now, I would presume the respective committee members wouldn't be able to judge the evidence neutrally, given that they've already made up their mind on the issue. Having said that, while a motion won't necessarily be detrimental, it seems an unrequired investment of time. The message has been given, accepted by Jytdog. And we need to move on.

Question from Giano

Sorry, I can't be doing with all this hashtag, question and ACE business; life is quite stressful enough as it is, without bringing card games into the equation. Now, my question: I note that you frequently seem to be en tour (ie: absent or away for long period) which is all fine and dandy if one's an air hostess or what have you, probably pretty lucrative too; however, as one with huge experience of travelling and attempting to edit from minute phones or, worse still, iPads with spasmodic internet connections, I can’t help but wonder how on earth are you going to be able to be an effective member of the Arbcom. Are you about to retire from paid employment and live at home with a cat on your lap?

Secondly, I find this link concerning [5]: There, you closed a discussion against consensus, and threatened an editor at work with a block if he said "fuck off" again, even though the sense of the discussion was quite different. If elected, are you going to try and take Wikipedia back to the miserable, repressed days of the early noughties, when Jimbo and a pack of like-minded, Bible-belt-like civility warriors terrorised all liberal thinking and writing editors. Your views on this would be most informative. Thank you.