Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Gadfium/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?
On the basis of the evidence I have seen, I would agree with you that Fram's admin rights should be restored. I think their rights were removed by T&S so they could not unblock themselves, and with Arbcom removing the block there is no need for the desysop. However, Arbcom had access to secret evidence that I do not have access to, and more than one arbitrator said that this evidence might have warranted desysopping. I cannot give you a definitive answer with this lack of knowledge on my part.

Thank you. I still think that they should not have based any decision on secret evidence, in the name of transparency, and three supported that, but fair enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the issue wasn't that the evidence was secret, but that the accusers were unknown. Arbcom has received confidential information in the past, and no one seems to be arguing that such information is always inappropriate. I understand you are taking a stand on principle, and I respect you for it, but to ignore that part of the evidence regardless of what it contains is the equivalent of not even reading it, and I'm sufficiently pragmatic that I would want to have all the available evidence.-gadfium 22:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reminded that admins can no longer unblock themselves, so my answer above was partly based on a false premise.-gadfium 01:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About reading evidence: do you read anything on the talk of LouisAlain which needed a desysop? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators don't usually go looking for cases; they are presented with evidence including diffs, and the other party has a right of reply. You've directed me to a lengthy talk page with no indication of which issue concerns you. Perhaps it is your exchanges with user:Justlettersandnumbers about notability, or it might be posts and blocks by user:Fram (which mostly predate this version of the talk page). On the current version of the talk page, I see nothing amounting to harrassment by either admin, or any other issue which might be considered abuse of admin rights.-gadfium 03:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, I also don't know more. I know only that LouisAlain's name was dropped on meta in the allegations regarding Fram. I don't know who complained about what, but I see no evidence of adminning mistake in the interactions. If this so-called evidence (which is open) looks baseless, I have severe doubts about other (secret) evidence in the matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same case, same thread, and already discussed above, but more formal: subheader LouisAlain. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?
I've read through your post on the Fram case, the thread at meta it refers to and the ANI discussion linked there, and I see in those nothing from Fram which merits a desysop. Fram and others have clearly tried many times to improve the quality of LouisAlain's editing, and have been met with resistance and failure to improve. The threads do point out that your gentler approach has borne fruit, but that has taken a very large amount of time from you. It is great that you have that time to devote to helping LouisAlain, but not surprising that Fram and other admins/new page patrollers cannot spend that time on a single editor.

So which remedy would you have supported? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind my answer above about not having seen all the evidence, I would have supported 1a, 2e, and 3. I have not made up my mind on whether I would have supported 6.-gadfium 18:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, works for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Joe Roe

Hi Gadfium. Thank you for putting yourself forward to serve on the committee. I have two questions relating to your nomination statement and one which I intend to ask all candidates. – Joe (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, arbitration cases are a fairly 'Big Deal'. Generally speaking the community is reluctant to file requests and even so the majority are declined if there is not evidence of repeated, serious disruption and the exhaustion of other dispute resolution options. Given this, how do you see your stated preference for 'cautions' over sanctions operating in practice? If, after a weeks-long arbitration case, an editor is cautioned, what is the next step if the disruption continues? Do you envisage another full case being requested and opened? Who would be responsible for monitoring the editor's conduct after the case and deciding when further action is needed?
I think that over time, arbitration cases have become a bigger deal than they used to be, and certainly far fewer are accepted. My preference for cautions was limited to 'editors who appear to be trying to do the "right thing", even if they overstepped the mark', and such cases are now more likely to be dealt with by motion than by a full case. It is up to the community to monitor an editor's subsequent conduct and raise new concerns either in a new case or at arbitration enforcement. I would think in most cases, an editor who fails to modify their behaviour after an arbcom caution could be dealt with by motion. It might be worth revisiting the concept of a "suspended sentence" passed in the first case, e.g. a topic ban, which can be put into force by a simpler route than a full case, e.g. by a group of mentors or by an arbitration enforcement discussion. I recall that Arbcom used suspended remedies about 12-15 years ago, and would need to find out why they stopped being used.
You state that arbs should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases. Do you think that the opinions expressed on arbitration talk pages are representative of the views of the community as a whole? How much room do you think there is for arbitrators to exercise individual discretion, which may be at odds with the views of the (vocal) majority?
The opinions of those who comment on arbitarion talk pages are not representative, but anyone who expresses an honest and constructive opinion should be taken seriously. On the Fram proposed decision talk page, several arbitrators freely discussed their thinking of the merits of the various remedies, and changed their positions to some extent in response to points made by the community.
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 understand I will get personal criticism and that the committee has always been criticised. I know the appropriate response is to either ignore it or to respond in a calm fashion, and not to get defensive. It's easy to see when other people respond inappropriately to criticism of themselves and think 'I can handle that better', but not so easy when it affects oneself. I think communicating by messages, which reduces the immediacy of the response and allows editing before pressing "publish changes" will make this easier than in a real-time discussion. I believe I can remain objective, but time will tell.

Questions from Collect

Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
It has to depend on the nature of the case. I wouldn't necessarily recuse because I was knowledgable about the subject matter, although in that case I might be more valuable giving evidence than participating as an arbitrator. There are few Wikipedians I know personally, and those who I've collaborated with tend not be be involved in areas which I would expect to result in an arbcom case. In general, I would recuse from a case involving anyone I have had close dealings with. An exception might be for a case where a high proportion of arbitrators have had such close dealings with a person facing a case, such as one dealing with a very high-profile editor or current or recent arbitrator.
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?
I like the idea of time limits, but we should be sympathetic to people who ask for extra time to answer charges, as the clerks are sympathetic to people who need word limit extensions.
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?
Usually, an unrecused arbitrator should not be providing evidence, and a recused one should provide it as part of the evidence phase thus giving the accused the usual time to respond. In the unusual situation of an arbitrator finding last minute evidence relevant to the case, the accused should certainly have extra time if they need it to respond, and it may be appropriate for the arbitrator introducing late evidence to recuse.

Questions from Bbb23

Why did you feel the need in your statement to say that you are straight and cisgender? How is that relevant to your qualifications as a possible arbitrator?
My intention was to warn voters who are looking for diversity in arbitrators that I can't tick that box. The draft of my statement was longer and I edited it down to meet the 400 word limit. My original sentence was "If you are looking for a greater range of diversity on the Arbitration Committee, you should look at other candidates. I am male, cisgender, straight and Pākehā (the Māori term for Europeans in NZ)." However, by using the term cisgender, I am showing that I have some understanding of LGBT issues, and by identifying as pākehā (which is a common identification in New Zealand), I show that I have understanding of racial and colonial issues. I'm very glad you asked this question, as I was aware I did not have space in the statement to make my position clear.

Questions from Newslinger

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
We already have clear policy against undisclosed paid editing, and strongly discourage editing with a conflict of interest (which covers paid editing with full disclosure). For the most part, paid editing is for commercial gain, while discretionary sanctions are for controversial topics, and mostly these do not overlap. The time when discretionary sanctions are useful against paid editors is when a state pays people to muddy the waters about documented events.
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
I'm not very knowledgable about how 2FA works, but my understanding is that it is more difficult to use on Wikipedia than on some sites, because WP allows a high degree of user anonymity. This is particularly the case if you change the cellphone or computer used for authentication. I'm happy for arbcom to recommend its use, but would not like to see it made mandatory unless the implementation can be improved. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

Question from GeneralPoxter

Follow up to Newslinger's first question on discretionary sanctions: You answer that paid editing and discretionary sanctions mostly "don't overlap". Furthermore, you state that discretionary sanctions are mainly for controversial topics. You cite politics and state-paid editors as opposed to editors for commercial gain as your only response as to when the two topics in questions are related. However, wouldn't the same apply to editors paid by commercial entities? The main motive for paid editing is to compromise and upset Wikipedia's objective and unbiased stance towards controversy, whether it be in the field of politics, economics, etc. Why would these controversial topics not all be susceptible to paid editors? Why would you claim that paid editing and discretionary sanctions "don't overlap"?
I'm not aware of paid editors whose motive is "to compromise and upset Wikipedia's objective and unbiased stance". Can you give me an example of this?

To enlighten you, I present to you the following article: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. GeneralPoxter (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Nosebagbear

Once the new ARBCOM is in we'll be seeing an "RfC [with] focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.". Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed?
I understand from Worm's answer to this question that a draft of the RFC was created some time ago but has languished, but as far as I know this draft is not visible to the public. I agree with Worm's view that we need to find a balance between an editor being able to report perceived harrassment without being further harrassed for that, and the reasonable need to look at the circumstances leading to the complaint. Worm points out that in the Fram case, the balance was tipped to one side. I suggest that in most cases, it's tipped to the other side, but I would want to see evidence that this has occurred to an extent that has been unfair to complainants.

Questions from EllenCT

If you were an ordinary non-functionary editor and believed that you were being harassed by a WP:TAGTEAM of COI editors who you thought were involved in organized and likely paid advocacy, under the current composition of enwiki dispute resolution and the T&S organization, how would you raise the issue? By private email or in the open? With the Foundation, community, WP:ANI, ORTS, Arbcom, and/or some other means? What are the most significant advantages and disadvantages of the various choices? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would raise the issue on a Wikipedia noticeboard. If it was over a matter related to New Zealand, I would probably start at WP:NZWNB, otherwise I would look for a relevant wikiproject, or go directly to WP:ANI. Prior to the Fram block, I would not have even thought about going to the Foundation/T&S, although I have been aware of WP:EMERGENCY for some years and have used it for matters pertaining to the safety of other people. I usually choose to raise matters in the open for the sake of transparency, and on noticeboards because a reasonable proportion of the people who might reply to me are those I have some knowledge of through seeing their previous interactions with others or myself, whereas with a couple of exceptions I don't feel I know the Foundation staffers at all. I realise my answer is more general than the specifics you have asked as I haven't limited it to paid avocacy. Going further from your question, as an administrator, I sometimes log in to the freenode admin chat channel, and occasionally ask for advice there. I acknowledge this is less transparent, but it has the advantage that I am talking directly to my colleague admins and I usually get a quick and helpful answer.
Do you personally trust the co-architect of superprotect leading T&S to act in the best interest of the community? Why or why not? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that Jan Eissfeldt attempts to act in the best interests of the community. I am most familiar with him through his statements at WP:FRAM, which were generally regarded as unhelpfully lacking in meaningful content. I am aware he was involved in superprotect, but I have not been able to find specific statements he made in that context, so I am unwilling to generalise any criticism of his communication skills. While the Foundation's introduction of superprotect angered the community and was eventually withdrawn, I accept that there has to be a higher level of control over the software used to run Wikipedia (Mediawiki as configured for WP) than allowing any administrator to substantially alter its functionality on the fly, but superprotect was in hindsight not the way forward in the dispute of five years ago. This does not make those who developed superprotect enemies of the community.

Question from Peacemaker67

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 was not aware of the concept of a "Clean Wehrmacht" prior to this arbcom case and the Signpost article, and I did not follow the arbcom case at the time. The case does look to be more complex than one I would expect ANI to be able to resolve, and while it looks like the banning of LargelyRecyclable was an easy descision, the way to handle the other named parties took some nuance which is more suited to arbcom than to ANI.

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) 03:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Carrite

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
I see several major problems. The first is the burnout of Arbitration committee members, which weakens the committee and puts a greater burden on the remaining members. This appears to have improved about six years ago; I don't know what changes were made to affect this. However, the current term has been particularly hard on arbitrators, and I suspect the Fram case overburdened an already-strained system rather than being the sole cause of recent problems. I suspect this is fixable. Reducing the number of arbitrators has been seen to have been a mistake. Possibly there has been discussion amoungst arbitrators on ways to reduce burnout which have not yet come to public proposals. I have wondered whether the Foundation paying for a professional mediator to advise Arbcom (but not to vote) would improve matters. That's just a brainstorming suggestion.
Secondly, there have long been problems with arbitrators working together when they are scattered across timezones and having busy lives leading to periods of inactivity. I wonder if arbs meeting each other in person might help them understand each other better. If I am elected, and if a reasonable number of other arbs intend to go to Wikimania in the years I serve, I will make it a priority to go myself and spend time with them.
That T&S didn't initially believe that Arbcom could deal with the Fram case, and a parallel lack of trust in Arbcom from the Wikipedia community, still leaves me worried even though T&S backed down. My statement about arbs being responsive on case talk pages is my contribution to reducing the lack of community trust.
If you were editing an encyclopedia article about Wikipedia Arbcom, for which member of the committee, past or present, would you include a photo as an illustration for the piece? Assume there is room for only one or maybe two photos.
I don't think there are suitable sources for an article, but something in Wikipedia space, or an article in the Signpost, on the history of Arbcom might be suitable. I would of course have a conflict of interest as a candidate. We are limited in which members have photos available under a freee licence. Newyorkbrad is a very highly respected recent member and would be a good choice for a picture, but do we have one to use? I recall there's a video of him giving a speech; perhaps we could get a still from that. However, I would favour a picture of the people who first developed the principles for Arbcom, who are named in History of Wikipedia as Florence Devouard (User:Anthere) and Fred Bauder, both of whom have edited in the last few months. I'm not aware of a free picture of Fred, but we could use File:Anthere Sahara 2004.JPG, which lends itself to some witty title about meditating about a case.

Thank you. —t /// Carrite (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've since realised that there is a suitable photo of NYB in the article about him. I would like to see the picture on Anthere as my first choice, and of NYB further down in the article if there is room for a second picture.-gadfium 01:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cassianto

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. I wondered whether, in future cases, not exclusive to IB discussions, you would consider it more important to deal with the cause rather than just the symptom?
Some editors like infoboxes, some don't. For some reason, although almost everyone learns to accept date formats and spelling variants that aren't their own preference, some editors get really heated about infoboxes. The arbitration committee cannot decide that infoboxes are mandatory, or that they are forbidden - it doesn't have any authority over content. Its role is to deal with difficult editors. This case put mechanisms in place - infobox probation and discretionary sanctions - to deal with incivility by editors when discussion infoboxes. The case title appears appropriate.
The appropriate process to make infoboxes mandatory/recommended/optional/discouraged/forbidden is an RFC. Discussions on holding such an RFC can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, but they wound down over a year ago.

You've not answered my question, merely skirted around the issue. But I thank you for at least taking the time to answer it, of sorts. Cassianto^Talk 09:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it in more general terms, not specific to infoboxes. Yes, Arbcom certainly needs to deal with causes rather than symptoms, but as it cannot rule on content issues, sometimes all it can do directly is address editor behaviour. Calling for an RFC is probably the most Arbcom can do to get the community to sort out disagreements over content.-gadfium 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and please allow me to be more precise. The disruption 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. Cassianto^Talk 17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration case you linked to above did have a proposal to limit infobox-related RFCs, but the proposal did not receive support. See Restrictions on infobox RfCs. I find the opposition to the proposal to be persuasive.-gadfium 19:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. If you're easily persuaded by that then clearly you're not up to the job. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Cassianto^Talk 21:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky caldron

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 are differing opinions in the community about how prolific content creators who are sometimes uncivil should be handled, and there are administrators on both sides, which brings about situations where a block of such a creator leads to a wheel war. This is not acceptable, and a number of admins have lost their bits as a result. The content creators have sometimes been called unblockable because the blocks don't stick.
In a workplace, you also get highly productive workers who are difficult to manage, and in general, the workplace is better off without them. On Wikipedia, I believe that collaboration is more important than content creation, and if I am elected to Arbcom, I will discount arguments that someone should be treated more leniently because they are prolific. Many civility cases involve some degree of "baiting", and arguments along these lines do need to be given due consideration.

Question from WereSpielChequers

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).
For a well-established editor, any fixed-term block should certainly be accompanied by an explanation, should the editor who is blocked ask for one. I don't have a problem with such as explanation being provided privately, eg by email. For a new account which is clearly WP:NOTHERE, an indefinite block would be the usual course.
I'm not comfortable with the identity (pseudonym) of the complainant not being made available to the person blocked, but there would be extreme circumstances where this might be necessary. However, in extreme circumstances, I would expect the block to be indefinite.
In the Fram case, while I don't know the exact details, I would have thought they could have been told which edits led to the block and why, without necessarily being told who had complained. If, for example, my answer here results in a complaint to authority, that doesn't necessarily mean that you were the person who made the complaint.

Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Caker18

Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
I haven't played a role as a mediator. I don't think it's necessary for every member of Arbcom to have mediation experience, but I do expect that if elected I will learn a lot from other arbitrators.

Question from SQL

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
I haven't participated in unblock discussions in any of those venues, and don't consider myself proud of any of the relatively few unblocks I've performed. On the other hand, one recent experience I'm far from proud of: an editor I've had some involvement with reported being caught in the block of another user. Since I suspect that the editor is a student and therefore likely editing from shared computers, I gave them IP block exemption, and immediately contacted the blocking admin, saying I would reverse my action if they were not comfortable with it. Other editors got involved, and a sockpuppet nest was discovered. I accept I was wrong to have given IPBE without asking for a CheckUser, and have learnt from the experience.

Question from Praxidicae

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?
We have no jurisdiction to stop people discussing Wikipedia with others, even if they do so on websites which have a history of outing, doxing or harassing editors. Some arbitrators or ex-arbitrators in good standing participate on such sites, but not in a way that harms Wikipedia or editors.
No one should be discussing any confidential material with anyone who doesn't have similar levels of permission to themselves, although there are some planned exceptions designed to protect privacy as much as possible while allowing Wikipedia to function. For example, CheckUsers report back limited information to administrators (and anyone else who scans the SPI pages) but are careful to reveal the minimum amount of personal information about those investigated.

Question from SN54129

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?
It's clear that Peacemaker67 is unhappy with the case, and may be hoping a substantial influx of new arbitrators will allow a reconsideration next year. It does seem a concern that so many of the coordinators elected at the following election were also critical of the case, but I note that two of those people are no longer coordinators. I also note Szzuk's rather alarming characterisation of MILHIST, particularly "there is a system of punishments...". I looked for a response to that but there was only a dismissal about "conspiracy theories".
KrakatoaKatie's suggestion that groupthink could be a risk at Arbcom is also a concern, but arbitrators are elected by the whole community who have the option of voting in new blood.

Question from Rschen7754

During WP:FRAM, you stepped back from the project and resigned sysop. Would you have done the same if you were an arbitrator during that time, or what other steps would you have taken? --Rs chen 7754 19:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of hundreds of active administrators, and by resigning I helped put some pressure on WMF without endangering Wikipedia. As one of 15 arbitrators (less than that at the time), the relative damage to Wikipedia of a resignation would have been greater. At the time I resigned, it did not look likely that T&S would hand the case over to Arbcom, but at about that time there was a dialog between some arbitrators and T&S. I do not recall whether I was aware of that at the time or only after resigning, but as an arbitrator I would have been aware and would have participated if I could, and would probably have considered I could be more effective by retaining my position.

Question from Banedon

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?
In the recent Eric Corbett case, the majority of arbitrators decided to accept the case. As Eric responded early in the case saying he would leave and scramble his password, I would have voted to either decline the case as moot, or if there was a suggestion that he might return with a new account, I would have suggested a motion that he be directed to discuss any return with the arbitration committee, where he would be asked to give assurances about future behaviour. I'm envisaging here a potential return after a substantial period of time, perhaps years, and the assurances would have to be pretty convincing. The difference between my approach and the idea of accepting but suspending the case pending Eric's return is that by announcing he was scrambling his password he was promising not to return, and to say he can only return with permission is a harsher penalty than saying he can only return to face a case.
However since he was subsequently found to have abused multiple accounts and indefinitely blocked, no case was needed and any return would be even more difficult for him.
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: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)
As I responded to Gerda above, from the evidence that is available to me, I would have supported remedy 2e in the Fram case. I see the desysop by T&S as a way of preventing Fram from taking any action on the English Wikipedia rather than as a separate sanction, and therefore their unblock should have been accompanied by a resysop. As noted above, I did forget that admins can no longer unblock themselves and mistakenly used that as T&S's possible reason for desysopping them.
There's a case request today. [4] Would you accept it?
I am familiar with the background to the case. Arbitrators do not usually accept a case request in the first day of its being posted, though they may indicate which way they are leaning. This case already has 35 statements at the time I type this, and most of the statements are recommending the case be accepted. JzG's statement suggests it be declined or put on hold and a moritorium imposed on portal creation and deletion until Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Portals guideline is complete. I would most likely have found that argument persuasive a few months ago, but the lack of progress of that RfC leaves me leaning towards accepting the case to examine editor behaviour.

Question from Piotrus

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?
I think it would be an excellent question to ask of Arbcom candidates, but I don't think it is necessary to make an answer obligatory. I have put thought into what I can re-arrange to make sufficient free time for Arbcom should I be elected. I have one commitment which comes to a natural end in the next month, and if elected I will not be looking for a replacement activity. I have a commitment which I put far more time into than I really need to but can easily scale back, and I have some hobbies which can be put on indefinite hold, while other hobbies I need to stay sane take a limited amount of time. I also accept that much of the work I currently do on Wikipedia will need to be dropped in favour of Arbcom.

Question from Gadfium

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?
Next year, the detailed results of the 2018 New Zealand census should be available, and I plan to add a demographics section to each relevant article. I have a python program which takes the online material from the 2013 census, and I will expand and adapt that, in consulation with WikiProject New Zealand
I was the main editor who got Kate Sheppard, the New Zealand suffragist, to FA last year. Next year, if not elected, I might try to get Elizabeth Yates to FA. She was the first female mayor in the British empire
I realise that I run the risk here of persuading voters I might be more useful if I'm not elected!

Questions from Robert McClenon

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?
If the community can handle the case, then Arbcom should decline it. Usually, we expect to see prior attempts by the community to resolve the situation before Arbcom will accept a case, but some cases are perhaps obviously complicated and might be accepted more readily. As I have not previously been an arbitrator, I will need to develop a feel for where the boundaries are. See also my response to Peacemaker67 above for a case where I thought the acceptance of a case despite lack of prior attempts at resolution was appropriate.
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?
I think it was an overreach, and it would have been appropriate for T&S to raise concerns with Arbcom and ask them to handle it. If T&S thought Arbcom had a weakness, they should have raise that concern with Arbcom and the English Wikipedia community and offered support in improving it. I do not say "completely unjustified overreach" because I am not privy to what T&S knew.
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?
I will be better able to answer questions such as this after I have spent some time as an arbitrator. I have seen mention of arbitrators being inactive without giving notice, and timezone differences, as being causes of delays. If elected, I expect to make clear to my fellow arbitrators when I expect not to be available - as I live in the southern hemisphere, my holiday period probably doesn't overlap much with others - and if I am unavailable due to unexpected events I will at least let others know and give an estimate of how long it will be, rather then just go dark. The problem with timezones is that there may be a limit of one cycle of feedback per day if all arbitrators wish to respond to a particular issue and each other.

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
Undisclosed paid editing is already forbidden in policy and the terms of use, and the community can usually handle this. I don't see the need for Arbcom to get involved unless the UPE is being done by an administrator.
For other parts of the terms of use, for the most part I think we have local policy, and I would expect the community to handle it, or in cases such as administrators not having secure passwords, an emergency desysop might be required. If there is no local policy, and the Wikimedia Foundation didn't immediately step in, I suppose Arbcom would discuss what role to take with WMF.

Question from Grillofrances

What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?
I answered a related question - the first one from Carrite, above. I'd add to that by pointing to my Candidate statement, where I say 'I intend to vote for cautions rather than sanctions for editors who appear to be trying to do the "right thing", even if they overstepped the mark. Editors who fail to heed such cautions and appear in subsequent cases will get less liberal treatment. I believe Arbitrators should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases.' Sorry that this is not a 'single thing'.