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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Lingzhi2

Let's assume, and quite reasonably so, that there are some policies and guidelines that WP:IAR could never trump under any circumstances. WP:BLP immediately comes to mind, as well as other situations with real-world consequences, such as harassment etc. What policies or guidelines might WP:IAR trump? Specifically, for example, could it trump WP:CONSENSUS? How would you deal with a situation in which you felt the consensus was meaningfully wrong?
Without a specific example, it's hard to answer the second part of your question. As to the first part, I believe the consensus model has served us well for many years. It's not perfect by any means, and sometimes it's muddy, and sometimes the people on the other side get raw about it. Is that rawness a reason to use IAR to get one's way? Not unless there's an extreme extenuating circumstance. IAR isn't meant to be a 'get out of jail free' card. It's meant to handle situations for which there is no real precedent that need immediate, decisive action. As for a situation where I felt consensus was meaningfully wrong, that's part of being an arbitrator. It happens all the time. I'm on the 'wrong' side sometimes. Sometimes I'm on the 'right' side. The key is not to take it out on myself or on the rest of the group, because it's not personal. If that's not the kind of answer you had in mind, please let me know. Like I said, it's a difficult question for me to answer without a specific situation to reference. Katie^talk 23:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newslinger

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
Well, I don't think it would work well even if it were authorized. The ToU is clear that paid editing is allowed, and our policy about it is a black-and-white situation. You're either in compliance, or you're not. If you're not, the current practice is to block the account until and unless it comes into compliance. That's not really a situation that the discretionary sanctions idea was meant to address. I hope I understood your question. If you have another situation in mind, please tell me and I'll do my best to answer. Katie^talk 13:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
I think we already endorse it. Whether it's something that's enforced on regular accounts or admin accounts is another matter. I don't think it's a good idea, as things stand now, to require it of even the subset of admins. I personally have 2FA enabled and have no difficulty at all using it, but we have to be conscious of the fact that we have users (and even admins) of all levels of technical ability and capacity. Not everyone has a smartphone. Not everyone is able to use an app or a piece of software to comply with 2FA. And not everyone who has the ability to use those apps and programs wants to install them. Until and unless everybody can use 2FA, I don't believe it's a good idea to force it onto people. Katie^talk 13:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peacemaker67

In retrospect, 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 obviously voted to accept the case, and I think that was the correct decision. K.e. coffman's statement showed several ANI threads about the general dispute. This was not a brand new thing that popped up and went to a case request two days later. This had been simmering for well over a year. Both sides were at loggerheads, and I believed then and believe now that the decision to take the case was the correct one. Katie^talk 13:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Banedon

Is there any vote you cast during your current term at Arbcom that you think you should've voted differently, with the benefit of hindsight?
I just went back and looked at all the PDs from 2018 and so far in 2019, and I don't think I would have changed any of the votes I cast. There are a couple of votes about functionaries that I wish I could change (not pulling permissions from anyone, but granting them), but I can't discuss those publicly. Katie^talk 14:06, 11 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?
To clarify, are you talking about a perceived bias where prolific content creators are treated better or worse than other members of the community? Katie^talk 15:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Does it matter? The question relates to your experience of bias, whether you recognise it as a chronic issue (or not) and what you will (or would like) to do about it.
Just wanted to make sure I understood your question, and I think I did. As I said in my statement, I think we all bring biases with us as humans. Some members of the committee come from a more content-creator background; some come from a more technical background. I don't think the committee itself, as a group, is biased either for or against content creators because the number and diverse backgrounds of the arbitrators gives a lively discussion. Are there instances where we've fallen down? I'm sure there are. More women, more content creators, more people of color, more arbitrators from places other than North America and northern Europe will help us understand some problems we've had in understanding evidence (the antisemitism in Poland case comes to mind, which happened during a really difficult time for the committee and was difficult for us to grasp at times). If I in fact did not understand your question, please let me know and I'll try again. Katie^talk 17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. We know that you didn't reply (to my attempt to keep the process short and simple) and what you supported. Imagine - difficult, I know - this was a new case, what might you have written in reply?
I'm not one to talk or write publicly just to hear the sound of my own voice. If another arbitrator, or even another person, has written something with which I agree, I tend to let that stand and not say much myself. That was the case here. If I were to reply now to something similar, I would reiterate what I said in the PD: given the same level of behavior, this person does not meet ADMINCOND and should go through a new RFA. Katie^talk 15:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).
Do I think the Fram ban was justified? No, and I've said so. Do I think Fram understood what the problems were and what they should improve? Yes, I do. I'm not going to re-litigate the whole Fram case here. It's pointless, I've said what I said and meant it, and I don't want it to take over this page and take my attention away from other questions people want to ask. Katie^talk 15:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
I think it depends on the kind of involvement, so no, not necessarily. Katie^talk 17:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Unless there are extenuating circumstances, I believe we have to keep the case on track, and that means using a timeline. We can always give extensions or lengthen the time periods if that's necessary. Katie^talk 17:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Your question presumes that the evidence is presented very late. I'm not familiar with your particular circumstance, Collect, so I can't speak to what should have happened in your case. But if an extension is needed, it should be granted. Katie^talk 17:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Caker18

Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
Sadly, mediating directly between two users is not a strength of mine. Way, way back before I changed my username from BaseballBaby, so more than 12 years ago, I was briefly a member of MedCab (the Mediation Cabal, a less formal group of volunteers than the Mediation Committee was, now long disbanded). The only thing I did, if I can remember correctly, was trying to get two users who had a problem with a page related to electrical engineering to stop edit warring. I was only moderately successful, and one of the users was indefinitely blocked not long after. I found I work better in situations like that when I'm involved with a group that puts out diverse opinions in order to find a solution. Katie^talk 07:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Lepricavark

How would you respond to editors who are concerned that the topic ban between Ritchie333 and Praxidicae is reminiscent of "star chamber" proceedings?
In retrospect, I think that should have been handled more in public. We were sensitive at the time – which was almost immediately after the Fram case closed – to Praxidicae's desire for privacy, and that we had failed previously with those editors who did not feel comfortable contacting Arbcom with their private information about Fram. We wanted to do better, and we went too far the other way. We didn't communicate clearly enough to either party. I think the result was necessary but the way we got there was very, very flawed. So I get it. It's a valuable lesson we learned (at least I hope we learned it). Developing procedures for handling cases that need to be held in private is another reason I'd like to stay on the committee for another term. Katie^talk 07:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from 28bytes

I gather from your response above to WereSpielChequers that questions about the Fram case annoy you, so I won't ask one. Instead, I'll ask this: what sort of case do you most enjoy working on, and why?
Ugh, that's not what I meant. Sorry. Questions about the Fram case don't annoy me. It's that it's already been talked to death, I've said everything I really have to say about it, and I don't think I can say it in any more ways that provide more insight. There are other issues I think people want to address here. But if you want to ask a question about the Fram case, I'll try to answer.
To answer this question, I don't particularly enjoy working on any kind of case. People get to a case because they're unhappy. It's a long slog, it's often frustrating, and the result is usually unsatisfying. It's part of the gig, but I don't like making people feel like that, so enjoyment isn't really something I get out of working any type of case. The difficult ones for me, to answer your question in another way, are the ones like German war effort, where there are hundreds and hundreds of diffs and lots of emails to the committee. We have to read every one of them, all those diffs and emails, and distill it all down to a few sentences, and it isn't easy. The Canadian politics case was interesting to me because I learned quite a bit about the Canadian political scene that I didn't know before, so that falls kind of in the middle. The easier ones for me, if there is such a thing, are the admin conduct cases, maybe because I'm so familiar with being an admin myself. Katie^talk 07:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SQL

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
It's not public because it contains a lot of IPs and geolocation, but unblocking Ms Sarah Welch is probably the one I'm most proud of. She was blocked as a sock of ApostleVonColorado pursuant to an ANI discussion in 2018, and she appealed to the committee. She made an excellent case, long and quite detailed, and I basically took the lead in investigating her appeal. It took about two months, and in the end it was clear she was not abusing multiple accounts. We voted and unblocked her. To go back to 28bytes's question above, if I enjoy anything about arbitration, it's probably this kind of thing – working behind the scenes, investigating appeals. We don't often unblock, but when we do, it's satisfying to give relief to that user. Katie^talk 07:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Carrite

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
The big, meta problem is that it's a group of unpaid volunteers with very little or no training who have to handle things that are sometimes way, way above their heads. That's improved somewhat since the child protection issues, emergencies, and some other things were taken over by the WMF, who are paid staff that can investigate and contact proper authorities. I think it's somewhat fixable in the sense that there could be training provided by the WMF and some other support given, like maybe use of a Slack or Asana channel to keep track of the dozens of tasks that fall to the back of the queue through no one's fault. It's inherent in that it's a volunteer-based system where the group members have differing levels of education and experience, and are located in seven or eight different time zones. Katie^talk 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you could do one thing over about the Fram case, what would it be?
In the run-up, I'd pay more attention to community members and all those ANI threads and case talk page comments and requests where Fram's behavior was repeatedly noted. It's like cooking the proverbial frog: toss the frog in boiling water and he jumps out, but start cooking the frog in cold water, raise the heat slowly, and the frog becomes accustomed to the temperature and stays in the water, giving you frog legs. That's how I felt this went. We got accustomed to Fram's behavior and it cooked us. Katie^talk 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from OhKayeSierra

In your 2017 ArbCom candidate statement, you originally stated that your goal was to make the project a collegial environment in which editors of all stripes and kinds can find a way to work together. Do you think you made progress towards that goal? If so, in what ways? If not, what do you think you could have done differently?
I read that statement before I made this year's statement, and oh how I wish I had made progress there. It's either the same or worse than it was two years ago. I think I thought I could do more as one person than I actually could do. The committee deals with user conduct, and in those kinds of disputes, not only aren't you going to make everyone happy, you're going to make a not insignificant portion of those involved question your motives. I said in an answer to another question that I don't enjoy any one particular kind of case because people who are involved in cases are unhappy about something. Unhappy people aren't interested in singing kumbaya. They want a solution to their problem, and most of the time we can't give them the solution they most want without taking something away as well. So the tl;dr version is no, I didn't make progress, and I'm not sure there's much that Arbcom or an individual arbitrator can do about it as things stand today. I really wish there was. Katie^talk 23:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
I don't frequent the sites about which you speak. I think I've been to WPO once in the last six months or so and that was to look at something someone wanted me to see. Those kinds of critical sites are useful to a degree in that they allow some venting about the project, and they have in the past brought up some issues that needed to be addressed. That said, sometimes the anger and frustration some of those critics have crosses the line into hate and conspiracy theories. This is a website, and if you're so wrapped up in this website that it threatens your sense of self to be blocked or banned, and you take that injury into real-world consequences like doxxing and harassment, I have no sympathy for you. Personally, I don't believe that there's much an admin or functionary can say to the people you're talking about that would make any difference in their thoughts about anything. They're trying to help by giving the voice of reason, so to speak, but it's not something I would do myself. Katie^talk 00:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Well, I'm the arbitrator who made that first comment, about groupthink, so I'm...trying to contextualize myself? :-) I was just struck there by the number of MILHIST coordinators who didn't want to change a thing about the way they approached the Wehrmacht articles. I don't know if that's because coordinators of a feather stick together, or they all had the same books, or what, but groupthink was the possibility that worried me the most. I didn't want MILHIST to become a place where one isn't welcome if one can't or won't toe the line with the coordinators. Let me be clear that I don't think there's any bad faith involved here. I just wanted to call their attention to it if they hadn't noticed it before, and I think Worm wanted to do the same thing. Katie^talk 00:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Vanamonde

I raised some concerns at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision (see "Comments from Vanamonde"; I'm having trouble linking to the section), to which I received no response. I understand that you cannot respond to every comment on a talk page; but I would like to give you another opportunity to do so. Specifically, I am concerned that the language used in that decision, and the diffs the decision highlights, will be used to stifle robust discussion of borderline sources in contentious political areas. Do you nonetheless stand by your wording?
I think I'd try to find better diffs, as there are plenty where Icewhiz was being a jackass, and that's what we were getting at. As to the wording of the FoF, I believe you're talking about Icewhiz's characterizations of Poland and Polish law? I don't know that anything there can be used to stifle discussion elsewhere. The Holocaust is a whole other animal from other disputes in contentious areas. If you believe it's a real problem, bring it to ARCA and we can try to make it clear that we're only talking about the Holocaust in Poland and no other area. Katie^talk 00:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I fully accept that Icewhiz was being a jerk and needed a TBAN: I'm referring to FOF 3.2.4, and specifically to the "inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments" piece of the finding. That sort of comment is a routine part of sourcing discussions in politically fraught areas of history. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see. If it becomes a problem, please bring it to ARCA so we can address it. I was looking at it from the standpoint of his behavior only. Katie^talk 18:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to goodness it doesn't become necessary, but if it does, I will be sure to. I think it can be difficult, with an editor who engages in superficially civil battleground behavior, to pull out specific examples of problem edits; nonetheless, in this case y'all could have done a better job of that. Thanks for the response. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q from SchroCat

You were active during the recent Fram arbitration. From your personal perspective, what was your take on how ArbCom handled matters? If it all happened again tomorrow (please god, no!), what would you advise should be done the same or different by the committee or yourself? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your lips to God's ears. :-) I answered a question from Carrite about this, so I'll let that answer stand for the big picture. I'd still sign the letter to the WMF. I'd still want to see that report. After it was underway, I think the only thing I'd change is that I'd want that motion to unblock Fram so he could participate here done sooner. We just didn't really think about it and should have earlier on. Once we had the evidence and started the case, I don't think there's much we could have done differently under current policy and procedures. It was just a mess for the whole three months. Katie^talk 00:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WBG

Comment on your own behavior as to these proceedings.
I think of all of them that this was the PD where I had the least to say, so there's not much on which to comment. Sometimes I don't have anything profound to add. I tend not to write just to see my own words on the page. Katie^talk 00:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in advance, for your answer. ∯WBG^converse 09:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [1]. 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'd like to read that, but $36 is a little on the high side. We could do what you're suggesting, but I think first-time arbs do not understand the amount of time and energy this takes. I thought I had a grasp of how much time I should budget, but I underestimated it by at least a third, probably closer to half. And it's not just time – it's energy, and willpower, and strength. You get sapped of willingness to engage with others, and that cuts into the Wikipedia activities you enjoy, which keeps you from refilling the well, which drains your energy, and the cycle goes on. It's quite difficult and there's no real parallel experience or training ground. You think you know, but you don't know. You know? Katie^talk 18:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
I'll go back to working SPI and writing and improving biographies. I miss the catch-and-release work on biographies that I used to do. Katie^talk 22:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Levivich

Aside from voting on the PD page, this is what I found for your participation in the 7 full cases this year. My apologies if I've missed something and am underrepresenting your level of participation.
GS: No comments outside the PD. There was more conversation from you about the case on your personal talk page than on any of the case pages.
Enigmaman: 1 comment on the workshop. 1 one-sentence comment on the PD page.
Rama: 1 comment on the workshop page, 1 comment on the PD talk page, and nothing else besides your votes on the PD. You were one of the drafting arbs for that case.
Canadian politics: a few comments on the evidence talk page, all about word limits. One comment on the workshop page about heading titles. Two comments on the PD talk page. This was the high point for your public participation.
Fram: All of your participation in this case was limited to talking with your fellow arbs on the PD page. No comments to any regular editors at any point in the case.
Antisemitism in Poland: the famous silent case. You made no comments anywhere other than straight voting in the PD (and you didn't comment there, either, except to vote). You were pinged four times on the PD talk page by 3 different editors – both parties, plus an uninvolved admin.
PIA4: no comments from you so far
I'm sure you were more active on the arbitrator's list. Still, if you don't have time to talk to us, why should we vote for you? If you do have the time, but have chosen not to talk to us, why should we vote for you?
Actually, I engaged once with Fram on his meta talk page, and quickly decided that wasn't something I was going to do again. I was inactive for a lot of the period around Enigmaman due to the flu and bronchitis. I drafted the Canadian politics case, and I assisted the draft on Rama and Fram. I've also engaged on my talk page about cases. I also have stretches where I have bad headaches, and sometimes those coincide with cases. I assure you, however, that I read everything, usually twice and often three or more times, and I take it all in. I talk when I have something to say that I don't think anyone else has previously said, or if I think I can phrase something better. I don't say things just to signify my participation or to hear myself talk. There's more I've done behind the scenes, like the functionary activity audits (three this year), ban appeals, and the CU/OS appointment process, that are essential to the function of the committee. If that's not enough for you, you shouldn't vote for me. Katie^talk 14:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Volunteer Marek

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?
The Signpost actually does a pretty good job of summarizing what's going on. I think that assigning someone to do yet another thing takes away from the time we have to attend to the other business of the committee, but something like this were to come to pass, I'm okay with it. Katie^talk 14:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jehochman

How do you feel about the right of reply and do you think this principle should be applied to Wikipedia biographies and/or Wikipedia dispute resolution, and if so, how?
Interesting question. The BLP policy already gives the subject of an article a right of reply. This is a wiki, after all, and they can also contact info-en at OTRS. That said, I feel that if there's a referenced statement in a BLP with which the subject of a biography has a problem, that problem is with the source, not with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a journalistic publication, and I believe the right of reply applies to journalism, not encyclopedias. (Inserting my IANAL disclaimer here.)
With regards to dispute resolution, the parties involved have ample opportunity through noticeboards, talk pages, and user talk pages to air their views. In summary, I think we already have most of the right to reply concept here in practice, though it isn't specifically enshrined in a policy of its own. Katie^talk 18:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from FeralOink

You have served on ArbCom for two years. It is a time-intensive, unpaid, and difficult position. I am satisfied with your past contributions, and I hope you are re-elected. In your candidate statement you said that you "try to be kind" when performing your ArbCom duties. You don't need to be kind. You just need to be effective. Do you think you could be less kind, more brusque/blunt/concise when appropriate?
My best friend, who has known me for more than 40 years, says that I'm kind until I've just absolutely had enough, and then I explode like a sewer rupture. That's what I'm talking about when I say it's difficult to be kind sometimes. A lot of this work comes with attacks attached. Not complaining – it's part of the deal, but at times it's also difficult to sit and take it. When I've had enough of some nonsense, I tend to lose my kindness. Katie^talk 20:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --FeralOink

I read through the questions asked of you by other Wikipedians. I am not interested in social justice, don't especially care if you increase number of people of color contributors while serving on ArbCom. I DO care that you conduct unglamorous but vital tasks like audits and ban appeals, that you realize MILHIST is getting sclerotic, etc. You are doing what I consider to be important! My question is not intended to be patronizing, nor stereotype you as a woman. In a prior answer, you said, "I don't say things just to signify my participation or to hear myself talk." If you were to indicate your completion of "behind the scenes" ArbCom activity where appropriate and in spaces with visibility to the WP project community at large, your credibility and gravitas might increase. Would you consider doing this?
I appreciate your sentiment and thank you for your recognition of important work, and I do not take your comments to be patronizing. :-) Each of us brings strengths and weaknesses to this group. I could tell you (but won't) what those are for the other seven current members, but my strengths are technical ability (CU in particular) and writing, while my weakness is a tendency to be a rather shy introvert with zero tact. As any Wikipedian who has ever met me laughs loudly about the introvert part, I'll assert that while I can be 'on' in a group setting, at the end of the day I'm all used up and I need you all to leave me alone, which is why I try to stay in hotels way far away from the meeting site. I have to recharge, as it were. It's a personality issue, not a male/female issue. I'd certainly consider bragging on myself a little more, I suppose, but to be honest I think I have enough gravitas and credibility. I didn't run in 2017 to get more, and I'm not running now to keep any. Again, thank you for your compliments and suggestions. :-) Katie^talk 20:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am satisfied with your answers, and appreciate the details.--FeralOink (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
I tend to look at previous dispute resolution attempts, including whether it's been brought to an admin noticeboard, when deciding to accept or decline. The exception is for admin conduct cases, where I have a pretty low threshold of acceptance because arbitration is the sole remedy there. Katie^talk
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've said this before and I'll say it again: T&S banned Fram because they didn't feel we were taking care of the problem. It's why the upcoming RFC about harassment, and the steps we take afterward, are so important. If we do not clean up our house, the WMF will do it for us. Katie^talk 13:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Can you, as an Arb, comment on the reasons for the delays? 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 can comment about this committee – first there aren't enough warm bodies. There are eight members, all of whom are busy in real life, and who have put in hard work on many matters, both on-wiki and behind the scenes. I'll repeat what I said to another questioner: this is not simply a matter of time management. It's a matter of energy management as well. The more complicated cases take more work and more of the energy stores we have to work on Wikipedia matters. And the community hasn't exactly lit up ARBPIA4 with a truckload of evidence and high participation at workshop. The election will help, because the new committee tends to come in with their hair on fire wanting to do things quickly. We're kind of caught between a community who wants things done now now now and a realistic estimate of how long it will actually take for volunteers to set aside family time to do 8-10 hours or more of work on a PD. As an example, the Fred Bauder PD took more than four hours to draft, and that was with Rob and I on the phone with each other one night. If it's done on arbwiki or by email, it takes at least twice that long or longer for something like German war effort. Katie^talk 13:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
It's a violation of the ToU and it's the biggest problem we as CheckUsers face right now, more than the simple vandals or POV-pushers. They're becoming more clever (I'll not say more per BEANS). I don't know that the committee has a specific role to play other than to assure the community that we're aware of the problem, and to bring up any repeat and egregious offenders to the WMF so they can take action globally. Katie^talk 13:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Grillofrances

What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?
There's no one single thing. I'd like to see more technical support from the WMF, as I stated above in a previous answer. Katie^talk 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a woman?
I've only said so in like 5,000 places. Katie^talk 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how many women there are among the 2019 Arbcom candidates?
Yes. Katie^talk 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how many women there are among the Arbcom members (before 2019 elections)?
Yes. Katie^talk 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't your disease (cluster headache) a problem to be an Arbcom member? Wikipedia says it lasts from 15 minutes to 3 hours but you write in your page it lasts from a few days to a few weeks. How long is usually the break between the headaches?
With respect, I decline to discuss my health with this editor. Katie^talk 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]