Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

 Note: Per WP:ACERFC2020, starting this year there is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

Questions from George Ho

2. Which ArbCom cases have affected you the most personally as a Wikipedian, even when you agree or disagree with the decisions made, and why?

   The obvious answer is Medicine where I was the filing party. I spent a lot of time last December and January as an uninvolved administrator trying to help nudge that dispute towards a productive outcome and after quite a few moments of despair I thought we'd gotten there after the RfC. However, the RfC didn't initially stick and I felt that ArbCom was the only place left which was disappointing because of the immense respect I had and continue to have for many of the main players on both sides of that dispute.

   Another case that I seem to have revisited a whole bunch is German war effort. I think it's a sneakily interesting case. You have an issue that is on the edge of whether ArbCom should accept or not. You have a conduct dispute but one that is closely intertwined with content which is a difficult situation for ArbCom (this content with conduct was also true to a degree in Medicine). Plus there were Nazis. I wrote more about that case in response to a question in last year's election so you can also see that for more of my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Hopefully different question, which ArbCom cases do you think have affected the English Wikipedia community as a whole the most (and, if applicable, the WMF)?

   The two cases that jump to mind here for me are Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe because I believe that is the first time ArbCom authorized what we now call discretionary sanctions. DS and GS are important tools in helping to calm disputes and was also a massive change to individual administrator power (at least in DS/GS areas). It is also a system, as a few sitting arbs have pointed out, likely needs a top down rethink. While the issue of DS reform isn't one of my top priorities, it is something I would eagerly participate in given that it might be a priority of other arbs and/or the community. This is an example of what I mean when I say I'm willing to do the work. As for GamersGate it was a massive and difficult case. It was also an important and necessary one for affirming the type of community that we want. Neither of these decisions were perfect (one only needs to look at the number of amendments to Eastern Europe to see that) but are two examples of how I think that ArbCom, on the whole, has done more good work than it gets credit for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda

2. In 2013, we had WP:ARBINFOBOX. In 2018, Voceditenore commented this. Would you agree?

   My introduction to active participation in ARBINFOBOX came when I closed the most recent RfC on Stanley Kubrick in September 2019 so I can't speak to what it was like in 2018. As you know, I ended up at ARCA this year because of an infobox related dispute. I think Infobox disagreements are mostly stable, that is the ArbCom case has been overall successful. However, the strength of feelings about them still runs deep. So there are periodic issues. If Schrocat and Cassianto hadn't exercised their option to vanish, I think we were headed towards a more in depth examination of the topic, but their doing that (rightly) lowered the energy around doing that. What that means going forward, I hesitate to speculate about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to you for not having wasted time before 2019 ;) - Kubrick had nothing to do with the 2013 case which was (or should have been) about the implementation of ((infobox opera)) vs. a side navbox (against admittedly massive opposition then - look for "17.000 words"). The case was not successful (imho), but common sense was, look. I wonder what feelings have to do with the topic. The socalled idiotbox is meant to provide easy access to idiots also (and vision-impaired, and readers not so good in English), - why not do that? Some argue as if it should replace the lead. When Voce made the comment (to one from the massive opposition, btw) Cassianto was away (June 2018 to January 2019). He always returned, and I miss him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung

I'm asking all candidates the same questions.

2. The Arbitration Committee is not a court of law, but it has often been suggested that it is 'judge, jury, and executioner'. I'm not asking you to comment on that, but my related question is: Should the Committee base its Findings of Fact and Proposed Remedy(ies) purely on the prima facie evidence presented by the complainant(s), or should its members have a duty to thoroughly investigate the validity, accuracy, and/or veracity of those complaints? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your questions Kudpung. For what it's worth, in other Wikipedia contexts, including in a real arb case I would have asked a question in return to make sure I understood what you mean by a duty to thoroughly investigate the validity, accuracy, and/or veracity of those complaints before answering. However, that's not really the spirit of this forum, so let me go ahead with my answer.

   All volunteer editing time is precious and arbs have an obligation to spend time on Wikipedia in a way that no other Wikipedia volunteer editor does. However, that is not an unlimited obligation. As an arbitrator I will take the time to read what is written in the case and to examine the diffs that support it. This is how I approach serious content reviews and I see no reason to act to a lower standard at ArbCom. And I am naturally curious and desire to be empathetic, and so I want to make sure I truly understand the context of what I'm reading. So sometimes, for me, it will require going beyond just the diff presented to grasp the situation. When I am drafting a case that obligation to really understand the totality of the situation would be even more. If that constitutes a thorough investigation for you then yes I think arbs have a duty. If that doesn't seem like enough to meet the standard you're suggesting then no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Wikipedia's drama board at WP:ANI is open to comment by any and all users. This could possibly affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even reveal a consensus that might not always be the most equitable. On Arbcom cases participation (sometimes throw-away comments) from uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also colour the objectivity of members of the Committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. My question is: In your opinion, how valid is such participation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   We have a system where we can elect fewer than the number of seats for a reason. If the community doesn't trust enough people to have an open mind to all comments but also the good judgement about what to give real weight to and what to dismiss out of hand then a seat remains vacant. So I trust the arbs, in the moment, to have the good judgement not to be swayed by the kinds of comments you're suggesting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49: Thank you for your answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Newslinger

2. Under what circumstances would a dispute over the use of unreliable sources be considered a conduct dispute?

   It would become a conduct dispute when it spirals in other directions, for instance it has become about personal attacks or refusing to accept consensus. On the whole, however, this is the kind of issue that the community has proven itself quite capable of handling so it would be a very special set of circumstances indeed where it became appropriate for ArbCom to intervene in such a dispute. One such case was, as I mentioned in my answer to George Ho, German War Effort. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Calidum

2. The recent anti-harassment RFC was closed with several findings related to "unblockable" users. Do you agree with those findings and how would you address them?

   I think the key finding, which I definitely agree with is that there is no clear definition or easy solution to "unblockables"...and we should all be treated equally. I try to live the idea of treating all editors with respect. I also try to talk honestly and publicly about the ways that we, as a project, don't always live up to the ideal of treating all editors equally (example). As an arb, taking a case of someone with a long block log can be consistent with the principles I laid out about when ArbCom should accept a case, as is taking more administrator misconduct cases. A key piece of that, however, is for people to open case requests in the first place, which is not something that ArbCom collectively, or individual arbitrators, could control. I'd also love to hear your thoughts on the RfC, whether here, on my talk page, or in some other appropriate forum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Why wait until the last day to enter the election?

   Good on you for asking this question. I waited because I wanted to see what the candidate pool was going to be. If I didn't think I was going to be one of the 7 best candidates I was going to be happy to not run. When it became clear that this election was going to have fewer candidates I decided to run. I also waited, because, quite honestly, there aren't a lot of incentives to go earlier. I have written elsewhere ([1], [2]) about the lack of incentives to go early and how that could be changed. I said good on you at the start because this kind of questioning/social pressure is another way of changing the incentives which I hadn't considered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from A7V2

I am asking the same questions to all candidates.

2. How do you feel about this statement from the WMF, in particular the line "On these issues, there is no neutral stance"? Should there be topics on Wikipedia which are except from WP:NPOV? A7V2 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   NPOV is a core content policy and there is no getting around it when crafting content. Maybe there is some ignore all rules exception to it but I haven't found it in my experience. It is a bedrock of my content work. As to the foundation, in my platform I discuss my thoughts about them. Ultimately they should not be getting involved in content decisions. If they do that's a problem and ArbCom is the group best situated to push back on that. However, I have enough good faith in the foundation that I don't quite read the statement in a content sense, I read it in a community sense. Yes the foundation should also not be interfering in how our community runs but I also don't have a problem with the foundation engaging in some advovcacy to try to influence our community. Each editor can then choose whether that idea rings true for them, or not, and act accordingly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. There is at least a perception of left-wing bias on Wikipedia, both regarding content and internally (for context see [3]. One of the examples given is that for matters relating to Donald Trump, the 2016 US election and Brett Kavanaugh, editors making broadly "pro-Trump" edits were disciplined 6 times more than those making broadly "anti-Trump" edits, but this is not to say this was or wasn't justified). Do you believe this perception to be true, and whether you believe it is true or not, what, if anything, should be done to address it? A7V2 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes I am aware of that perception. I'm not sure how widely its held by our readers but it's one I've definitely seen expressed on wiki. So I agree it's part of the discourse. I saw that research as well and I have also seen editors criticize that research. I think right now we're ultimately at the "discussion" phase of things. For instance, what left-wing are we talking about? Is it just the US left wing or is it a more international left wing? If it's just a US thing that might have to be something we think carefully about but accept as an international encyclopedia. If it's a more international left wing bias then it would likely need to be addressed in the same ways we address other forms of bias because of our pool of editors, namely conscious work to try and bring in editors with those life experiences. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AmandaNP

2. Each and every year issues of systemic oppression become louder and louder in society. In 3 major countries that our contributors come from have been dealing with increasing public pressure to address such issues. (US: [4], UK: [5], Canada: [6] [7]) Given this and the increased political attention this is getting, it's bound to be a dispute that spills into many different sectors of Wikipedia (race, class, gender, sexuality, disability, etc.). I would argue that cases where these issues could pop-up already have been litigated through previous committees (AMPOL 2, MoS through ATC, and Gender through GamerGate) and will continue to do so. My question is, as an Arbitrator, do you think you have a role in preventing systemic oppression from happening on Wikipedia, and what would that role look like?

4. The role of CheckUser and Oversight are given to every arbitrator on request. CheckUser regularly requires experience to interpret results. Given you have a vote in how proceedings involving the overturning of checkuser blocks, the enforcement of the CU/OS policies including the privacy policy, and the appointment of new functionaries, how does your experience show that you can place independent thought into such decisions? I'm not asking about how you defer to others as that is not showing independent discretion and thought. (Cases relevant: ((checkuserblock-account)) blocks where the behavior doesn't match but technical evidence does, accusations of violations of the privacy policies by two former functionaries, and the lack of appropriate staffing of venues - OTRS oversight, checkuser and paid editing queues, ACC CheckUser queue, and IRC Checkuser and oversight requests)

   Great question. I talk some about this in my platform so I won't repeat what I've written there (too much). One thing I do is ask questions. I've tried to do that on this page, even though the format isn't super conducive to it. I am also not afraid to be the first to express an opinion, even if it goes against the grain. You can see both these qualities in the yet to be closed RfC on a change to our banning policy. First I asked a question to make sure I understood what was being proposed. And then when it turns out I did, I cast only the second oppose with 9 supports. This oppose was then cited by several other editors so I think it made a difference. I am also pleased and grateful that several editors have taken the time to leave a comment on my discussion page that speaks to your question as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]