Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#((ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=))

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

   I tend to stay away from the drama board and I believe the only one I have participated lately concerned Winkelvi. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm proud I took place in that discussion, but I said what needed to be said.

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?

   I'm not sure I can really answer this unless I know the context behind it.

4. You've been blocked 3 times for harassment, personal attacks and misuse of advanced tools. Can you please explain those blocks and provide diffs following the last one that demonstrate your ability to calmly and appropriately handle a difficult situation?

   The 2011 block was for telling another user to "fuck off" because I felt he had been edit warring with me and unnecessarily templated me. In 2012, I told an editor who was harassing me to "fuck off" (I'm consistent at least) for leaving me comments like [1]; that account wound up being a sock of a banned user. The most recent one was for edit warring in a topic area I care too much about, and have since stayed away from that area.

2. I can't seem to find any articles you've created recently. When did you last create an article, and why did you stop?

   I believe the last one I wrote was Mike Hazen in 2015. I haven't created any since then because article writing isn't necessarily my strong suit and my time could be better spent doing more gnomish things. I do wish to get back into writing some day, however.

2. I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. If you had been an arb then, what might you have replied, and which of the remedies under 2 would you have supported?

   I would generally agree with your sentiment, though I must admit my opinion could change based on whatever evidence the committee received in private. But I believe desysoppings on the English Wikipedia should be done by those involved in the English Wikipedia, whether it be the committee or possibly one day the community itself.

4. When I wrote that, remedy 2a was available, - would that have been for you?

   If you are asking if I would have supported the proposed remedy 2A (reinstating his adminship), my answer is yes.

   Thank you, satisfied. I guess you are aware that you would have been in a minority then, but it could change ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I believe the committee needs to have membership that better represents the community as whole, and not just certain subgroups of the community. Is it fixable? Yes. The community can do a better job vetting candidates.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. If you're elected, will you be running a RfA? Why or why not?

   I have little to no interest in being an admin. I might, however, need access to deleted edits, as an arbitrator but I believe those would be accessible using with the oversight permission.

4. You stated back in June that you would not run for Arbcom ([2]); what changed your mind?

   Another user said that, not me.

My mistake - apologies. — Ched (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. While it's normally been customary on the English Wikipedia for arbitrators to demonstrate their trust for the role by being sysops first, there is no hard and fast rule against non-sysops running for ArbCom or even serving if elected to the role. However, for myself and (in my opinion) for the majority of the community, there needs to be a demonstrated trust to effectively handle confidentiality, since sensitive tools such as oversight and CheckUser are customarily assigned to arbitrators and are occasionally used as part of the case process. Can you please explain why the community should entrust you with these sensitive tools, and how you felt that you have earned that trust from the community?

   I feel like I have always been a straight shooter and the community will be able to see that by looking over my history here.

4. As far as I can tell, this is your fourth time running as an ArbCom candidate (having run as Hot Stop in WP:ACE2011, and then Calidum in WP:ACE2014 and WP:ACE2016). What, in your opinion, has changed since your previous runs, and why do you think the community should trust you to be an arbitrator?

   In 2016, I did receive support from 55% of voters. While this wasn't enough to win a seat because others finished above me, it was above the 50% threshold to be elected.

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

   I'm not sure they would be appropriate. When it comes to paid editing, you either follow the rules or you don't, so I don't see how imposing discretionary sanctions would remedy the situation.

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

   I don't believe doing so is within the committee's jurisdiction

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?

   I think the committee made the right call to accept the case, regardless of whether or not it been through AN or ANI before. Cases like that, however, should be a relatively rare.

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) 03:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?

2. 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: [3], [4], [5]. (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. 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).

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

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?

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?

2. Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [6]. 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?

   Answer

2. As a fellow candidate I wasn't going to ask anyone more questions, but what I've just run across is something I feel needs to be addressed. I thought your name was vaguely familiar for some reason, and then realized that it was because I'd recently responded to a WP:PERM request from you, granting the pagemover right. I figured this out because you have a recently handled request at WP:RFP/R that is still live on the page. A look at your user rights log shows you got rollback for a third time just two days ago, after having it revoked not once but twice previously for misuse.
   So my question is this: Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to ask the community to put you in a position that requires a high level of trust, where you can snoop at all sorts of sensitive information, when you are barely able to retain the most lowly user right that one even needs permission to have?

2. I'd also like to follow-up on the previous question concerning your block log. I don't feel you're being entirely forthcoming about why you were blocked. We can stick to just the most recent one in 2017, which you characterized as "edit warring in a topic area I care too much about". The link helpfully provided in your block log shows something quite different, it appears to show you following another user around a variety of topic areas and reverting them for basically no reason. The logged reason for the block was "personal attacks, vandalism, harassment, and abuse of advanced permissions" which is a lot of reasons, any one of which would've justified a block. (this would seem to also be the reason rollback and other perms were revoked at that time) The blocking admin also commented at that time "...Editing against consensus achieved at an RfC is bad. Calling an editor a "faggot" while you do it is worse. Proceeding to than harass the editor you incorrectly reverted by using rollback on over a dozen random edits of theirs is about as bad as it can get..." As far as I can tell you did not reply at all to any of that at that time and simply rode out the block.
   So, my question would be, let's say a stricter admin had gone ahead and indef blocked you for that (pretty sure I would have). What might your unblock request have said?

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?

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?

2. Related to Beeblebrox' question. Your own issues with page moves is paralleled by your opposition to full disambiguation, contrary to WP:DISAMBIGUATION, and frequent !votes in RMs against en.wp titling policy. How is that a qualification for office?

   You are often the one in the wrong when all is said and done. Your refusal to believe in any primary topics is absurd and laughable and should be considered by anyone closing a requested move.

Well, the guideline is at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DISAMBIGUATION and your persistent activity against the guideline and for incomplete disambiguation can be seen at Talk:Tommy (album) and Talk:Thriller (album). You also just went up against US:PLACE here Talk:Orlando,_Florida. Your answer above shows that you don't understand WP:TITLE, so how can you be qualified to be on the Arbitration Committee when titling is a fairly important area. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Just like me you have been involved in many page move discussions, many over primary topics (of which unfortunately we often disagree but seem to otherwise get on). How would you deal with the Perth AR? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   I likely would have supported desysopping all three admins for making administrative actions while involved (only one was desysopped). Violating WP:Involved should be treated as a bright-line rule. As for JHJ, I do not believe the findings related to him were at all necessary and would have opposed them. Also, I'm not entirely sure this case took a month to decides, because the issues appear pretty cut and dried.

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?

   Cases of admin misconduct would be an easy accept for me. In general, I would prefer other cases be something the community has either tried to address unsuccessfully or referred to the committee.

4. 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?

   T&S should have forwarded their concerns to the committee and let it do its job.

6. 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?

   In the past, I have supported using three-arb to handle cases using a similar approach as the United States courts of appeals. I believe reducing each arb’s case load would improve the committee’s response time.

User:Calidum - I think that is a very good idea. Would parties have the right to request a revote/rehearing by the full ArbCom, with the understanding that it would probably be declined (as with requests for United States courts of appeal to hear a case en banc)?

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

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