Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

2. I see you have not used block tool in the past 5 years, although you are busy, do you have any other reason about it? Hhkohh (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   No, blocking is sometimes necessary, despite nearly always being misunderstood by the blocked user.

4. What do you think Ritchie333 comment in this page? Hhkohh (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. You mention you wish to re-establish civility as a central policy. What role do you envisage the Arbitration Committee taking on with regards to civility enforcement - would you encourage more case requests being placed where civility issues are a concern, do you see a significant number of problems which can be traced to failures in civility and do you envisage the Arbitration Committee forming new policy with regards to civility ? Nick (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Civility is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and for good reasons. Cases should be taken when incivility is being used as tactic or strategy to control content or participation in the project. Increased civility may result in more inclusion of diverse viewpoints in our content. For example, suggestions such as "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." are unlikely to make women feel welcome.

4. If you don't withdraw from the election, can you explain your thought process on unblocking yourself, whether you think such behaviour is appropriate and how you would deal with another administrator behaving the same way (assuming broadly similar circumstances) who may be the subject of an Arbitration Case or Motion Nick (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   No harm was done. If someone else did the same thing I would do nothing. No harm is done by someone participating in a discussion on a noticeboard. Blocking, de-sysopping, and banning is to avoid harm to the project, not just to mess with someone that is being harassed.

I'm guessing you've missed this question, so @Fred Bauder: to get your attention to the above ^ Nick (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. In what ways, if any, do you believe the role and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee have changed since your previous term on it? Do you expect to do work similar to your previous term, or do you expect that it will be a different experience? Mz7 (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I would expect a much different experience. I would continue to spend significant time trying to figure out why people are doing whatever is being complained of. If people are rude, it is because it works.

2. Regarding your desire to re-establish civility as a central policy – Have you seen this Request for Comment before you read my question? I'm looking forward to seeing your opinion posted to that RfC. wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I second this comment: "*Oppose as redundant to WP:Civility. The policy already prohibits gross profanity, rudeness, harassment and belittling other editors. Telling editors to "fuck off" falls cleanly within these prohibitions, and can be dealt with accordingly. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

2. Hi Fred. Since you're running on a civility platform, could you define what "civility" means to you? I'd prefer a philosophical answer to a specific one but please do indicate any civility "lines in the sand" you firmly believe should never be crossed. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   It was wrong of the Athenians to shut Socrates up by forcing to drink hemlock. Wikipedia, at its best, is dialogue. It is better to discuss matters than to engage in aggressive behavior to rid yourself of gadflys. See Apology (Plato)

2. What do you think about WP:Civil POV pushing as a concept? If there are two editors one of whom is polite to a fault, but rejects fundamental Wikipedia pillars such as WP:RS or WP:V, and there is another who is brusque but is clearly following best practices for writing content and vetting research, would you centralize civility to such an extent that you would marginalize the latter and allow the former wider latitude to politely continue their campaign?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   The polite editor who is not following WP:RS or WP:V is sanctionable on that basis. The brusque editor who is violating civility is sanctionable on that basis.

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   A wall of text is always a problem. I'll try to get to it and see if I can figure out what the point being made is. Well, looked at the whole page some. Difficult. I would have to spend many hours looking though the interactions before I could say anything sensible or appropriate. I think I understand the point being made, I served in the US Navy,: The viciousness which may occur during the polite conversation of the Wardroom is not somehow more civil than the customary foul language of the crew. However, in civilian life, I have learned to not include motherfucker and cocksucker in every other sentence. We should expect similar discretion during our discussions here. Foul language puts people off, which is why it is used. Thus other editors are encouraged to leave the field. We want other editors IN the field.

2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?

   No

4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?

   Probably

6. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually out of the US, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?

   No, to the first question, Yes, to the second, and Yes, to the third. If I have counted the discrete questions correctly.

   Collect (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you believe that your editing of Wikipedia in relation to Donald Trump has been compliant with key Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? WJBscribe (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   With the exception of adding some material which violated the Goldwater rule, yes.

2. I was interested in Nick's multi-part question (currently #2 in the opening section), but your response does not appear to actually answer any part of the question. Would you care to expand on your answer? (I appreciate your answers above might just be holding answers and you might be planning to expand on them anyway.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Answer is expanded

4. Similarly with RegentsPark's question (currently #5). A philosophical answer was requested, but all you gave was what looks like a random statement about a philosopher and did not address the actual question at all. Would you care to expand on your answer? (I appreciate your answers above might just be holding answers and you might be planning to expand on them anyway.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Hardly a random statement. But expanded.

6. Looking at your response to Mz7's question (#3), I don't understand what you mean by "If people are rude, it is because it works." Would you care to expand? (I appreciate your answers above might just be holding answers and you might be planning to expand on them anyway.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Being rude to other editors, constantly asserting that their edits violate some policy, and all the other nasty or "polite" maneuvers editors who want to shape content engage in are legitimate subjects for administrative and arbitrator attention, if their purpose is to prevail in content disputes, prevent information being added, or buff the reputation of the subject. Aggressive editing works. Others, even the most experienced, often give up trying to add information or improve an article.

8. You have just received a Discretionary Sanctions notice for an edit you made about Donald Trump (see here), and that appears to be a subject in which you have strong personal opinions. Do you have any further comment to make on that edit, and do you think it is representative of the impartiality and sound judgment you would need to show on the Arbitration Committee? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I have repeatedly, in arbitration decisions, taken the position that summaries of information from reliable sources such as https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html should be included in Wikipedia content. The edit complained of is an example of that.

10. If I might expand, then, and ask you to be more specific... The NY Times carries out its own investigation (using three of its own employees) into a person it is known not to favour and, as a result, alleges that the person might have committed criminal acts. Those allegations are disputed. You use that as a source to create a new section in a BLP article about that person to include the allegation, in Wikipedia's voice, that the BLP subject used "possibly, tax evasion and other fraudulent techniques." What's more, you introduce this new section in a prominent position as the first section in the article after the lead. And the BLP subject is one towards whom you clearly have a strong personal antipathy. Do you still maintain that this contribution was in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:DUE? (Before you answer, I'd like to draw your attention to WP:NEWSORG which says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.") Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:NEWSORG: '"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).'

    That does not distinguish between reporting and editorial, does not address your apparently partisan placing of the material in that article, and does not answer the question "Do you still maintain that this contribution was in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:DUE?". ArbCom candidates should not be evasive, in my opinion.

12. Given your response to Beeblebrox, below, and considering that you were an Arbitrator some time ago and that it seems reasonable (to me at least) for your previous record to be considered now, how can you justify refusing to answer questions about it and related post-Arb events (especially if, as suggested, they relate to your key platform policy of civility)? Do you apply the same standards to Donald Trump and his historical tax returns? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    All the arbitration decisions I participated in are available for anyone to view. Discussions on confidential internal mailing lists are not.

So you are not open to discussing personal issues relating to civility if they are not deemed the business of the ordinary plebs who actually build the encyclopedia, but you want to be elected on a platform of enforcing civility on the rest of us? Why should we not consider that hypocrisy?

It is the public discussion and decisions I have made that are relevant, not the lyrics of Blue Yodel Number 12. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sarcasm/condescension, it is noted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Your reply to Gerda starts with:--A wall of text is always a problem. As it appears from your above responses, you have such an extremal antipathy to it, that your replies are barely making any sense. Frankly, cases that are presented before the ArbCom (now-a-days) do require a lot of reading and are exceedingly complex to be waved off by one-liners and we can't have the luxury of having someone as an arbitrator, whose communication can't be deciphered. (Unless you do plan to be someone who will chime in at the last moment with minimalistic support/oppose !votes at PD and vanish thereafter until that phase of the next case comes by....) Any comments?Please comment as to the broader locus of the underlying conflict between your coveted hat and exhibited skills.∯WBG^converse 11:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Please ask a question that does not assume facts not in evidence

4. Well, your replies to Nick, RegentsPark and ජපස leads me to believe that there is a complete dearth of comprehension & communication skills, from your end. And, as it appears, I might not be alone. Do you plan to improve your future communication-style and radically improve upon the replies or do you think that they're optimal and you're doing a fine job? I think this coupled with the above ought be enough clues for you.Feel free to answer one of them, since both are on the same issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Please ask a question that does not assume facts not in evidence

6. Which of the sentences, used to frame my second question, is un-evidenced? The first line has been stated to be my perception of your activities, vide leads me to believe. The second line, vide Boing's questions. The third line is the question itself.

   You must answer for your own perceptions. I am not able to. They come from inside you, not from me.

   Thanks for answering the above questions.∯WBG^converse 14:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8. How does interesting discussion (at the answer-box to ජපස) qualify as a reply? ∯WBG^converse 14:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   See a better answer above

10. Do you see the irony in the trinity of (1) your condescending reply to Boing over Beeblebrox's note, (2) your agreement with Opabinia's comment (over Gerda's question) and (3) the platform of civility that you are running on? ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12. Have you read this piece? In light of it's broader theme, how do you justify your answers to SoftLavender, (in particular)? ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14. Do you think that evasiveness and a surly, dismissive and cranky attitude are optimal for a seat at ARBCOM?∯WBG^converse 14:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Checkuser requires considerable technical expertise. Personally, my skills are marginal. They are good enough to check results, but someone who routinely does checkuser needs better skills. With respect to oversight, a person need to be able to take responsibility when genuine harm can result from published material. An oversighter needs to be willing to take responsibility for doing that, not engage in endless arguments about how harm might not result, or get their back up because a government agency is making the request, (usually law enforcement or a court). If I understand current practice, there is an oversight committee. I'll have to see how that goes.

2. In the light of your declared interest in civility, and apparently the treatment of women specifically, can you say something about the circumstances surrounding your retirement from the legal profession? I ask because it seems to me to be an important principle that those acting in a professional capacity - and in this context that means ArbCom - don't merely talk the talk when it comes to upholding professional standards.

   The ethics complaint that caused my legal troubles came from a woman who was upset about having to pay child support. It was made up, but she had a friend who supported her testimony, and I lost. I was not disbarred, but with a ruined reputation, there was no point in continuing to try to practice law. The exact complaint was not that I assaulted her but told her over the phone that I was interested in her. Most complaints by woman are honest, but not all.

Interested enough to offer to pay to have sex with her I understand was the allegation. But why do you single out women for special consideration? Surely not all complaints made by men are honest either. Eric Corbett 17:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, I don't remember the details that well. After all, I didn't participate in any such conversation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Suppose you're elected. Someone files a case request asking Arbcom to rule on this RfC. Would you accept the request? If so, how would you rule? If not, why not?

   The administrative closing is appropriate, even outstanding. The theme of my campaign is sanctioning editors who attempt to use incivility in order to discourage participation by others or control content. Such situations are fact specific.

4. Your answer doesn't answer my question I'm afraid (at least not directly). Would you accept the case request? If so, how would you rule (you said such situations are fact specific, is this what you'd rule if you're on Arbcom also)? If not, why not?

   I would accept a case where a user was using "Fuck Off," or other contemptuous language, toward other users in order to discourage others from participating in dialogue, or in order to control content.

2. The ball is pretty much in your court here as I can’t reproduce the remarks leading up to it without your permission, but in light of your stated position on civility, I’m wondering if you could comment on what led to you unsubscribing from the functionaries mailing list.

   Rehashing old quarrels is unproductive.

Okay, but given that answer, why shouldn't I a) not vote for you and b) tell every person I know they should not vote for you as I think you will be a terrible arbitrator who will do things that appear to be punishment and give slippery and evasive answers? Perhaps I'm jumpy about this sort of thing today, but right now I will be voting "oppose" - but you have the power and ability to change my views. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I watched that entire press conference as it was happening. Lots of "when will you stop beating your wife" questions. And then, after some sort of "answer" was given, they would keep on talking without giving up the microphone to the next reporter that was called on. Conducting any kind of productive dialogue in such a highly charged atmosphere is nearly impossible. Here, at Wikipedia, the need to regularly engage in productive dialogue is vital. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I read that as you declaring my vote is not important to you and my views are irrelevant? A long-standing arbitrator who is very experienced with dealing with civility expressed concerns about your off-wiki conduct, and you refused to answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this goes directly to Fred’s supposed commitment to civility, in particular towards women, so it is relevant. And personally I did not “quarrel” with him at all about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What press conference? What is the functionaries list? When did the candidate join and when did the candidate leave? What does this have to do with civility? Do we have diffs or wiki links so I can look this up to assess the candidate's position? It drives me nuts when there are discussions like this when everyone is supposed to know what is being talked about, and if you weren't part of the dispute or discussion of some dispute, you have no idea what drama is being talked about. It communicates that if you were not part of the discussion or dispute, your opinion does not matter at all. How am I as an editor independent of this dispute supposed to assess this candidate based on the question and the answers? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox's question implies that there is hidden information which puts me in a bad light. By posting it here, rather than asking me privately, he is able to create a bad impression. I think the material he wants to repeat is posting of the lyrics of Blue Yodel Number 12, an old Jimmy Rogers song, on a mailing list as my comment about a case where a woman made a great deal of trouble. But I'm not sure. Ritchie333 links to a BBC article and video of Trump, and reporters, acting nasty at a recent press conference. It has the intended effect, a skillful slur. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Ritchie333 was the one who posted the BBC link. I hate to have to say this but I think it is important, don't you think people trying to be arbcom members should be better at following threaded discussions, in particular working out who was saying what in mostly signed discussions? See confirmation [1] [2] Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC) 08:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, corrected. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The press conference is referring to the recent press conference of the president of the US which was highly contentious for numerous reasons including those mentioned in the link to BBC given above [3]. You can watch the whole (I think) press conference here File:President Trump Hosts a Press Conference.webm. There is some limited discussion in this article Jim Acosta#President Trump press conferences but that is only really one issue. Civility is one of the issues that clearly arose there, and it's enforcement and refusal to engage due to alleged incivility and other things. Although I think we also have to be realistic that whatever the rights and wrongs of the press conference and how Jim Acosta was barred, we probably shouldn't expect random volunteers who want to contribute to building an encyclopaedia to have to put up with the same sort of stuff that the US president may be expected to, and likewise what is expected that the White House (and US federal government) in handling disputes. However people may still see parallel concerns.

The functionaries mailing list is described here Wikipedia:Functionaries. I assume that Fred Bauder was added to the list when it was created sometimes around January 2009 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 1#New mailing list structure as they were appointed to arbcom in 2003 when it was first created [4] as sort of mentioned in their candidate's statement, so were a former arbcom member when the list was created with the membership criteria including former arbcoms. I think they unsubscribed back around February 2014 per these [5] and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 10#February 2014 Functionary changes.

It seems clear to me from the above discussion that those of us who aren't part of the list don't know in particular why this involves civility because it's a private list and so the contents will remain private unless those who wrote the info reveal it. While this may be slightly infuriating to those of us who don't know what it's about, since lists subscribers can vote it's probably fair enough for them to ask about any concerns they have here. A notable point is that as I understand the above discussion, Fred Bauder probably can talk about what went on, without violating the privacy of others who may have taken part, or revealing anything else that cannot be made public. They have chosen not to, as is their right.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the full explanation! I had not clicked the link to the CNN Acosta and Trump dispute, which I am familiar--my bad. I had mistakenly assumed the candidate was answering the original question about some a press conference related to the mysterious dispute, rather than talking about the Acosta press conference. It does make more sense that this is a hidden dispute that only concerns those who were present when the dispute took place, and perhaps the few people on that list want to speak to their concerns that only they know about. For those of us not on the list, it is a bit like the proceedings of the highly secretive FISA court. --David Tornheim (talk)

Well, I would take Fred's reply above as sufficient for me to go ahead and air it out, even though it is probably rather moot at this late date. The topic under discussion involved off-wiki harassment between some blocked or banned users. Not much any of us could do about it really. It is worth noting that some of the harassment was of a sexual nature. For some reason Fred thought it would be helpful to attach the aforementioned song lyrics to his post, the exact passage being "Never take a woman who is short and thick,She'll have you hunting lions with a little old walking stick." Not the worst thing I've ever heard by a very long shot, but not helpful to the matter at hand either. Several other functionaries said as much, and Fred's only reply was to abruptly unsubscribe (or he was abruptly kicked off? see below) from the mailing list without further comment. None of that is the kind of behavior one would expect from someone asking to be elected to our highest authority on dispute resolution on a platform of bringing back civility. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fred is now saying he was kicked off. If true I have no idea who made that decision or how it was made, but it was clearly related to this incident as it happened the same day. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being ignorant of what actually happened you feel free to excrete here! But why? What is your purpose? User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Please take a look at this recent case, which involves civility. Do you agree with the outcome of the case? Why or why not? What, if anything, would you have done differently if you had been an arbitrator when the case was requested? –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I would probably not considered Volvlogia postings to the talk pages of users affected by Cassianto's behavior canvassing. I would not have admonished him; I would have thanked him. Otherwise, the decision seems very good. One reason I agree with it, is that the user had a long history of incivility. The attitude of "impartiality," when one of the central purposes of having an Arbitration Committee is to deal with incivility, grates.

2. Hi Fred, what consensus determination (closing complex ANI/AN threads, closing RfCs, closing complex AfDs, etc.) have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years? Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   None

4. What sanctions-enacting work have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years? E.g. enacting a sanction as is your prerogative as an administrator, based either on a noticeboard discussion or your own observation of an editor's behavior? Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   None

6. What dispute-resolution work have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years? Or if necessary, more broadly, what dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years? Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Very few

8. What has or have been the focus(es) of your administrative activity over the past 3 years? Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I occasionally looked in on noticeboards

10. You said above that you have engaged in "very few" dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys on Wikipedia over the past 3 years. Can you please specify which ones? This shouldn't be hard to find, via a quick scroll through your contribs.

    Free free to do that. You won't find much.

12. You are running on a single platform, which is to "emphasize re-establishing civility as a central policy". As you know, WP:CIVIL already is a policy, and ArbCom doesn't make policy. ArbCom only tries cases it accepts, and it accepts only cases that are actually brought to it, after having previously been through several phases of dispute resolution such as ANI or AN, etc. (1) What civility-related discussions, anywhere on Wikipedia, have you engaged in over the past 3 years? Please be specific. (2) What civility reports have you filed at noticeboards on Wikipedia over the past 3 years?

    None

14. Above, in Q5, I requested that you please specify which dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys you have engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years. In your response you avoided doing so. Therefore, I am disputing your claim that you have engaged in dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys on Wikipedia over the past 3 years. Feel free to correct me below by specifying any that you have actually engaged in.

    I don't claim any such thing. I have done a little administrative work, but not much, and generally avoided dispute-resolution debates. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, but have avoided heavy-lifting. Now I'm volunteering.

16. You have blatantly lied in your answer to Q7. You claimed in your answer to Q3 that you had engaged in a few dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys on Wikipedia over the past 3 years. In your answer to Q7 requesting proof of this, you wrote "I don't claim any such thing." If you cannot answer questions on this ArbCom candidate Q&A accurately and honestly, why should we trust you to be an honest and fair Arbitrator?

18. What admin actions (actions that only administrators may perform) have you performed in the past 3 years?

2. In 2012, a sitting arbitrator made a statement that a certain editor "has never been a Wikipedian". This statement was met with a lot of backlash, a block, and further drama. Without getting into specifics about either of those editors, could this be a proper statement to make about any editor? Would it have been appropriate if expressed differently? Rschen7754 06:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   No, although I don't remember the details about the editor so described. Simply noting a long history of sanctionable behavior and sanctioning them is what is needed.

4. Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Rschen7754 06:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes

2. Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?

   The case was handled appropriately, it was obvious that additional efforts to settle this particular dispute would have been futile.

2. You come across as a surly, dismissive and cranky, monosyllabic CIV warrior in your answers here; frankly I get the impression of someone who wants to rule from on high and doesn't care for explaining; borne out by my long, and often unhappy, memory of the bad old days. Why the hell should we elect you again. Sorry for the bluntness, but goose for the gander. Ceoil (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Because I will, fairly, carry out the program I'm running on.

I'm not seeing much evidence that your view of "fairly" is widely shared, or that you care if others see it so or not. Ironically (putting it nicely) you are coming across a caste conscious warrior. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you feel free to act as ugly as you wish here, an assessment which I believe is true. I would change that and enforce Civility. You, should you continue to engage in ugly behavior, would be subject to sanctions, and, if you are unable to control your behavior, which I suspect is true, would not be able to participate on Wikipedia. So, in a way, you are fighting for your life. I understand. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Whilst the above question was needlessly antagonistic I have to ask do you (the candidate) really feel that response is the measured calm response that an Admin should make?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   It was productive. I understand much more about why he feels as he does. He seems to fear being oppressed by a false elite. Being unable to comment freely as he interacts here, on Wikipedia.

4. Ancillary to the above given your recent desyop and the fact that a number of eds and admins have expressed concern about your recent behavior How do you address the concerns (especially as you do not seem to have acknowledged any wrong doing) expressed in both the ANI, and related threads? Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   No harm was done.

6. Also would you consider a user who had acted as you did in both your unblocking of yourself, your edit warring and the replies above to Ceoil as being "in good standing"? Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I suggest you look at Ceoil's contributions history and comments.

I did, this is not about him (he is not standing) it is about you. It does not matter what he did (as an admin and experienced ed you should know that by now).Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it ever acceptable on Wikipedia to behave like a bull in a china shop? Are there any advantages whatsoever to coarse language and belligerence? Are there any circumstances under which the project can benefit from what are technically violations of our code of WP:CIVIL? I realize those are three questions but I think they are related. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I suppose one should, once in a great while, show that you are really, really upset, if that is the case. Just to keep it real. What is wrong is to use aggressive behavior to try to control whether or not others are able to participate effectively in the project or to try to control content.

4. Is dialogue the flip-side of incivility? Is there sometimes too-heavy a reliance on policy and guidelines and correspondingly too little genuine engagement in discussion, free of the jargon of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays, in an effort to bridge differences in opinion? Or do you perceive our policies and guidelines (and essays) to be the scaffolding upon which Wikipedia must be built? Can you comment on the relationship between relatively freeform dialogue and rigid adherence to what are sometimes called PAG? Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Incivility and rule-mongering are used as tools to discourage participation by other editors and inclusion of the full range of verifiable information from reliable sources. Dialogue can be used to the same effect, see Sophistry, particularly this definition from Wiktionary: "An argument that seems plausible, but is fallacious or misleading, especially one devised deliberately to be so."

6. Between rule-mongering and dialogue, which do you think is currently used to greater ill-effect on Wikipedia Talk pages? Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Rule-mongering, It sound so reasonable... Out and out sophistry is routinely handled appropriately in administrative closures

8. How can we encourage dialogue that is not sophistry? Is there any way to favor one over the other? Is there such a thing as incentivizing rational dialogue and disincentivizing incivility and bullying and rule-mongering? In short, what can anyone do to make this a better place? Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Patient feedback for both good and poor reasoning. Hard to do... but worth it. It's a continuum, from innocent error to disingenuous exploitation.

1. In your answers to User:Softlavender and User:Hhkohh,you state that in the past 3 years

you have not engaged in any consensus determination,any closing of RfCs,AfDs or ANI/AN threads

you have not engaged in any sanctions-enacting work

you have engaged in very few dispute resolution conversations and have in fact avoided them.

you have not used the blocking tool at all

that "you won't find much" in the contributions you have made to dispute resolutions

you have not engaged in any civility-related discussions or filed any civility reports

So what HAVE you done over the last 3 years? How have you improved Wikipedia to make it a better and more harmonious place? What activities and tasks have you performed here to benefit the site? Lemon martini (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I add interesting information to articles.

2. You specifically mention civility as a key policy. Do you have any opinion on this recent RfC?: Wikipedia talk:Civility#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not!

   See Question from Banedon

2. There are currently ongoing ARCA could you state your opinion about the issue [[6]].

   Decline. I have nothing to add. As to your suggestion that there should be a consensus rule, actual Palestinians have little presence on the internet, so the only consensus that could be arrived at would be between Zionists, liberal Jews, and left-wing activists, not promising. I don't think there is any good solution. Like all 1RR remedies, it was imposed because the Arbitration Committee cannot consider content, and something must be done.

2. A lot has happened the past day, with you being blocked several times and desysopped. It must have been a hard time for you to remain rational. Looking back, to what extent did you manage to stay civil in your own opinion? Obviously being civil is important to you. To what extent did uncivil remarks from other people trigger you? If so, could you point out examples where you felt the line of uncivil behavior was crossed? I hope these questions can form a bridge of sorts from what happened back to your key points. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm partially to blame. I lacked confidence that the problem with people spamming this page with negative comments and repetitive questions would be dealt with by anyone. This was compounded by not reading the directions regarding the election which, I am told, tells candidates who to inform about difficulties. So, I felt I was on my own. And if anything was going to happen, I had to do it myself. This is a theme in my real life, by the way, and there too, good faith that I could count on others would avoid much trouble.

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

Cinderella157 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. My actions as an arbitrator in the past was usually at the transparent end of that spectrum. I advanced many proposed findings, and the evidence for them, and remedies, and the reasons for them (principles), on workshop pages and discussed them at length. I resisted movement of discussion to the internal arbcom mailing list. However, sometimes private and sensitive matters are involved. And repetitive discussions of particularly troublesome editors probably have no place on our public forums. I guess the principles and spirit I follow are full, free, candid discussions which, on the workshop page, are open to everyone. This did not work out in practice and workshop pages were often filled with nasty, useless commentary. I can claim credit for the invention of the workshop page and the way it is conducted, but, frankly, as things developed, it is a rather utopian idea that does not work well in practice, as, being fully open, it is as open to harmful agitation as it is to helpful suggestions.

3. There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
   1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
   2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
   3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   The problem is mobilizing a majority of the other arbitrators to support any action I take. Hopefully there will be a full crew committed to addressing matters such as the examples you raise. I agree that, while every little incident may seem trivial, repetitive use of such tactics is very harmful to both participation and content.

5. In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   It is really hard work. You need many examples, then need to convince a majority of the other arbitrators. Without specifying particular articles, a skilled public relations specialist may be able to keep the articles about their client's products polished indefinitely, or a left-wing activist may be able to maintain an article about an iconic myth in the same manner. I have quit submitting cases about such situations. I just move on. But if the hard work was done, some progress might be made and those who run into these situations might have more confidence in bringing them up for dispute resolution. Essentially, you have to look at the reasons the civil POV editor has for invoking Wikipedia rules; how by doing so they maintain the desired content.

2. Hello, Fred. As you have previously served or are currently serving on the Arbitration Committee, will you state what you believe is biggest misconception most editors have about how ARBCOM works? What do you think editors SHOULD know about the operation of ARBCOM and how arbitrators collaborate that we probably don't realize? Any aspect of ARBCOM's operation that you would change if you could? Thanks and good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   It can be hideously difficult to figure out what is going on. Despite, and because, everything is logged, there is a mountain of stuff, which take hours to go though in order to determine who is acting in good faith and who is gaming the system. It may be that many overestimate the degree to which even the most diligent arbitrator succeeds. I would like to see a shift from looking at actions to looking at the motives for them. In other words, I expect sophistication beyond what anyone likely to be elected to the arbitration committee is capable of, let alone any committee.

2. Do you have the time and patience necessary to devote to this highly taxing responsibility, and by that I mean not judging an editor based on preconceived notions without careful examination of the case or simply agreeing with aspersions cast by opposing editors you may know and trust without personally investigating the diffs in the context the challenged editor intended, or waiting until other arbs have posted their conclusions and simply agreeing in an effort to avoid making waves? My primary concern is that some arbs are accepting the position when it’s quite obvious they neither have the time nor the patience required to actually read the diffs provided as evidence to make sure they were presented in the context originally intended by the challenged editor.

   I will not have the time or energy to do the intensive investigations I did during my first terms. I will follow up any evidence presented by parties and have a substantial basis for any votes I make with respect to principles, findings, and remedies. The problem you raise is real enough, though. Being on the Arbitration Committee is more than just making sure your "side" has a vote. It's hard work.

2. How many of the other candidates would you vote for ahead of yourself?

   Haven't looked at the list of other candidates. I'm sure there are some I would strongly support and some I would strongly oppose if I closely investigated their career here. The better the answer I made here to your question and the better the reasons I gave for my opinions, the harder it would be to function if we were both elected.

2. I see that you understand how time consuming and intensive this role can be. I also see that you seem to dislike doing things a normal admin would do in favor of editing articles. How do you handle the cognitive dissonance of these two conflicting points of view?

   Other than matters I have assumed responsibility for, I do what I enjoy.

4. Let me clarify then. Why are you trying to 'assume responsibility' for something it does not appear you enjoy?

   I support the project.

2. Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Wikipedia content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Wikipedia Sucks!, Wikipedia Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Wikipedia or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I looked at them years ago as people who had run into trouble here created them. They occasionally hit on something. I haven't looked at them for years. There is a page on Wikinfo, which I have not paid that much attention to: http://www.wikinfo.org/wikinfo/index.php/Critical_views_of_Wikipedia

4. The Wikimedia foundation began issuing site bans (“SanFranBans”) of Wikipedians deemed unacceptable for participation several years ago, beginning by making a case for such exclusions on child protection grounds, but gradually disposing of inconvenient individuals for a range of other transparently obvious reasons. These exclusions are made by one or a very few individuals with no oversight and no process for appeal. Do you feel that this growing trend of WMF permanently banning individuals from participation on all Wikimedia projects is problematic, or is this intervention beneficial? Do you feel that each and every ban so far implemented by San Francisco has been justified? Do you feel that San Francisco banning individuals for reasons beyond child protection or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Wikipedia's discipline committee? Carrite (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I wasn't aware of that and don't enough knowledge of who has been banned to be able to comment. Problems that are not addressed by mechanisms within a language Wikipedia are in effect kicked upstairs. This is especially true of oversight requests that are not handled by overnighters here and, presumably, questions of whether the persons you speak of present problems. One hopes there are good reasons for each ban. Certainly, in the case of anyone who posts child pornography, there is, the penalties are severe, and when you try to deal with it, even view it before you remove it, it ends up, at least temporarily, on your own computer. Mere possession is a felony. Doing things which have to be done, which the Arbitration Committee is unable or unwilling to do, is necessary.

Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. One on-wiki comment cited by your critics is your Redirect to Clown proposed remedy. Do you feel that those types of remedies are within the Arbitration Committee's purview, and, separately, do you plan to suggest similar remedies if you are elected to a new term? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   "Redirect to Clown" "The article concerning a person who maintains an external site which contains material which harasses a Wikipedia user may be redirected to Clown while the offending material remains on the external site." I gored a sacred cow. Fatal mistake. However it demonstrates an ugly truth about Wikipedia, systemic bias. I think a person who is the subject of an article who choses to involve themselves in the editing process here is fair game. Essentially, he became a Wikipedia editor. Please keep in mind that it was not an edit nor a redirect; it was a proposal a majority of the arbitrators would have had to agree to. Targeting the editors of the article about you on Wikipedia should be a punishing experience, even if the particular remedy I proposed is not appropriate.

2. How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?

   Perhaps a "Tell the World" program encouraging editors to post Twitter and Facebook notes when they add particularly interesting new information or when something significant happens to an article or to themselves as an editor. Would lose anonymity on Facebook though.

Thank you for your answer. feminist (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?

   We have had to ban a few disable people who, despite being willing, even enthusiastic, were unable to make useful contributions or control their behavior. Otherwise bans should be limited to editors who only vandalize or systemically violate core policies.

4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way shape or form. At one time, a remedy call a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?

   Editors who systematically use incivility to control content or discourage participation by others are editors who violate a core policy.

6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?

   It exists for highly productive editors, Ceoil, for example. I'd bite the bullet, and potty-mouth could move on. Nasty high-status editors or administrators drain good will, but so does draconian enforcement. The middle way is more than an antique Buddhist saying.

8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?

   Fair warning

2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?

   It can, although, mostly it's a worthless snakepit. I invented it. It is a Utopian monument to dreams of rational dialogue.

2. I wondered if you could give some insight, for those of us who were not around in Wikipedia’s early days, into how you became an administrator. Your RfA appears to be an email from a developer saying that you have been given sysop rights. Did you undergo any form of vetting by the community? Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I participated in the discussions about Wikietiquette which led to formation of the committee, development of the original arbitration policies, and volunteered to be an arbitrator. Notice might have come from a developer, but I was appointed by Jimbo. Requests for adminship did not exist. My vetting by the community was intense participation in the Wikipedia mailing lists, which in many cases, included policy discussions. Those mailing lists are little used now.

2. If there was a block appeal to ArbCom by email for an indefinitely blocked user for spamming or BLP violations, and you were the one to reply to the user, how would you handle it? Would you discuss the block on the list first?

   I would probably forward the request to the arbcom list before I looked at the details. My reply would be that I have forwarded your request to the Arbitration Committee

4. Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.

   Search for academic in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop This is, in effect, what has been done with the medical articles.

6. Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?

   Yes

8. Admin socking is a rare area ArbCom has the remit to deal with. If you're brought a case of admin socking, are you willing to go through the investigatory process and potentially vote to desysop an admin? Especially if you are met with silence (or a lack of a defense) from the admin?

   Yes

10. How familiar are you with the privacy policy and access to non-public data policy? What is one part you find interesting about one of them and why?

    No, I would need to study that.

Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Could you discuss your general philosophy toward enforcing our rules on undisclosed paid editing? Another candidate has said that our rules on UPE are weak, but the terms of use are quite specific: UPE is prohibited. What level of "proof" is required before you'd ban somebody for paid editing? Do admins need to follow these rules, or should they be held to a higher standard?

   Personally,I don't see much of a problem with declared paid editing, but there are certainly some skilled public relations people at work here, and it is quite difficult to convince administrators or the Arbcom about it if they are careful to follow the rules and are courteous. One even doubts ones self. After all, they do cite rules that might apply.

4. This summer I sent a private complaint to arbcom about an administrator who had very obviously inserted material from one of his employer's press releases into the article about the company without making a COI or Paid Editing disclosure. The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI. I was not informed about how the proceedings were being conducted, or who actually voted on the decision, or why the admin was not considered to be a paid editor, or even why he did not have to declare his COI. I was informed in a very short email signed by a single arb when the decision had been made, but there was very little information in the email. My request for clarification didn't result in any clarification. I understand you can't comment on the case itself, but can you comment on how such a case should be conducted?

   I suspect the decision was based in his editing history. It probably lacked a history of buffing up his employer's article. Disclosure would had identified the administrator's employer. An isolated incident would not justify any remedy beyond a warning.

2. What is your opinion on the essay WP:CPUSH, and do you think ArbCom should take special care in handling the kind of cases it is describing in the future.

   It's hard to do, and sometimes good faith editing looks a great deal like POV pushing. Recent history in the US suggests POV pushing is pretty common in the general population, so common that severe restrictions would make Wikipedia a rather nasty briar patch which would inhibit participation by large blocks of the population. However, the most pernicious examples are not the result of naiveity, but of clever editing calculated to impose a point of view. Usually, a set of articles is involved. Those cases should be identifiable to administrators or arbitrators who do not share the point of view being promoted.

4. Do you agree with this definition of "hounding", and the additional comment DGG left during ArbCom's !voting on it, particularly as it may relate to concerns over another editor's ability to properly read and interpret or concerns that an editor who has plagiarized a lot of text before may do so again? (Please note that this does not relate especially to my specific ArbCom case, nor to anyone involved in it; I just really like the definition as it is clearer than the one that's currently at WP:HOUND, and DGG's comment especially was something that honestly I would have liked to see enshrined in the final decision, and perhaps in any future statements ArbCom may make on the issue.)

   People who copy and paste need to be followed. Targeting people you don't like or disagree with about basic policies and then nit-picking is hounding.

2. When I consider candidates for Arbcom, more than anything I consider three things -- WP:CLUE, the person's judgement, and the person's self-awareness and resilience (ability to acknowledge mistakes and change course). Your behavior this month, edit-warring in this very forum and in using your tools to unblock yourself twice, was the result of several bad judgements piled on top of each other. It was also profoundly uncivil behavior -- aggressive action using power, and no discussion of your concerns nor effort to reach consensus that they were indeed valid. The essence of civility - which you have talked so much about -- is discussion and persuasion in a good faith effort to reach consensus. But you have expressed only disdain -- not even bothering to discuss your concerns with the content here nor your concerns with your being blocked. Instead you attempted to use force, without discussion, to get what you wanted- that is what the edit warring and self-unblocking were. Force. Even worse, you are even today abusing the Arbcom forum to finally give us some inkling of what your concerns were, at the workshop phase of all places. Again, that is a legal powerplay, not a civil effort to discuss. Probably worst of all, you seem to have no awareness of the huge time-suck you have created for the community, dealing with this at AN/ANI and the now-ongoing Arbcom case; all of the time people are spending dealing with your bad judgement and violence (edit warring and wheel warring are acts of force), is time they are not spending building an encyclopedia.
   Here is my question - will you please reconsider your candidacy for Arbcom? Will you please reconsider your approach to this entire project? If you will not do either, please comment on your own behavior (including your abuse of your privileges, and lack of any effort to actually discuss your concerns with the content here or your block) in light of CIVIL. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   There is a page for comments; please use it. I promise to never read it. This page is for questions to the candidate about policy and its enforcement. It is my intention to vigorously enforce civility and the other pillars of Wikipedia policy. That's it.

2. According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain.

   Depends on the information available from reliable sources.

4. The U.S. National Institute of Health explains Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Health here. Is it appropriate for our articles to describe these treatments in WP:Wikivoice as pseudoscience? Is it appropriate to use Stephen Barrett's work and publication in Quackwatch as a primary source to discredit such treatments rather than publication in highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine?

   Generally, yes. But, certainly, to the extent it exists, information from positive peer-reviewed articles should be included.

   I'm not a fan of quack medicine. It's fraud. Once when I complained about chest pain from second-hand smoke, a local quack, a licensed MD, offered me a course in acupuncture. I remarked that a drum and rattle might work as well, and I wasn't joking, traditional Native American medicine practitioners rely heavily on suggestion, which probably works better than little needles. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6. Consider a controversial topic where two polarized groups of editors have strongly differing opinions on content, and one group regularly takes members of the other group to WP:AN/I to have them topic banned or indefinitely blocked—-not because of behavior that actually violates policy—-but primarily because the accusing group prefers not to deal with the "disruption" of editors who disagree with them on content. If members of the accusing group have sufficient control and influence at AN/I (from AN/I regulars, including both commentators and sympathetic admins), then that group can systematically eliminate all editors of the opposing group who disagree with them.

   Do you believe this is going on? If so, does it serve our core policy of WP:NPOV that only editors from one side of a controversy are permitted to edit the topic? If it is going on, and the dispute comes to ArbCom, how would you handle it—-especially if ArbCom does not address content?

   I can't cite a particular instance but anything you do to grief other editors in order to control content is editing behavior and subject to sanctions. That includes activities such as taking stuff to WP:AN/I. Editing with an agenda, and using Wikipedia procedures, rules, and mechanisms to enforce the content you favor is sanctionable.

8. It is often asserted that ArbCom cannot rule on content. I assume that means it will not decide specifically what should be in an article.  But what if part of a dispute has to do with allegations that an editor(s) is lying about content in a source(s), using contradictory or double-standards as to what qualifies as WP:RS in the topic area,  preferring inferior sources over superior sources, preferring outdated sources to current sources, dismissing high quality sources that articulate views the editor(s) does not want in the article, and other behavior that create bias in an article in violation of WP:NPOV. Do you believe ArbCom could handle such an issue? How about this case?  Would you as an Arb be willing to look at a source’s content to verify whether an editor was or was not lying or misrepresenting the source's content? In sum, would you be willing to see if there are some serious sourcing issues?

   The issues you point out are not content issues. Content is determined by the policy that all notable points of view with respect to a subject for which there are reliable sources are to be included in an article about the subject. I think all the issues you raise fall under editing behavior rather than content. The case you cite was not decided on the basis of content but on the behavior of the editor complained of.

2. Have you read this academic paper on ArbCom? Anything you agree/disagree/find interesting? (Disclaimer: I am the paper's author. I am not looking for pats on the back, but I am genuinely curious if you heard of it, read it, and what do you think of it; feel free to be critical of it, I am interested in your honest opinion on whether such research is useful, not in having my ego stroked). PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me back. TIA. Update @Fred Bauder:: please see User_talk:David_Tornheim#re:_Article_about_ArbCom for how to access the article by free (there are at least 4 ways as I uploaded the article to multiple open access repositories).

   I can't access it, $36, but congratulations on making use of this rich resource.

2. In your opinion, is there anything more important to Wikipedia than civility? Is, for instance, protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia more important than strictly enforcing politeness?

   The integrity of the encyclopedia is dependent on civility. Use of incivility to discourage editing by diverse voices and to enforce bias results in loss of integrity.

Thank you for your response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Looking back on the decision of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski, do you still feel that the remedy provided was adequate? Davidpdx (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   It is working as well as can be expected. Old story at this point, so not much editwarring for the last few years

2. Hello Fred, thank you for volunteering again and good luck with this nomination. You are one of the early members of the Wikipedia community and were pivotal in the founding of the Arbitration Committee to which you've served before. In my view, you certainly have the experience and skills to do the job. However, looking at some of the questions and attacks above, and I'm not referring to the genuine questions but obvious attacks here and on your discussion page, do you feel there has been a concerted effort by certain individuals (some of whom extremely influential) to muddy your name and damage your chances of being elected? If yes, why do you feel that is and what would you like other editors (who were not privy to any of the behind the scenes drama which precipitated - what in my view can only be described as character assassination) to know before they cast their votes? My last question is: Do you believe there is systematic bias on English Wikipedia especially in relation to Africa? If yes, why do you think that is and what have you actively done in all the years you've been here - either as an admin or member of the Arbitration Committee (during your tenure) to combat it? Thank you and good luck.

   Our rules about reliable sources make it impossible to cover African subjects as there is very little accessible local press or coverage, so a village in the United States, which may, indeed, have books published about it, and maybe a local newspaper, has more available sources than some African countries.

2. What do you think about reverting an edition which provides true information, 100% of the info is based on reliable sources, it's objective, grammatically correct, not offending anybody and useful for the article but it's reverted because a new editor just claims this info is redundant?

   Not much, even if it were a well-established editor doing the reverting, although there are common sense limits to repeating information.

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

2. In determining the "effectiveness" of DS, what factors should be taken into account?

   DS is a bad solution to an impossible problem. It is easily gamed by an experienced editor with an agenda.

4. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

6. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS not been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

8. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been effective in addressing conduct or behavioural issues, but otherwise detrimental to the encyclopedia? If any, in what ways & why?

10. Other than DS, what measures could ArbCom take in addressing conduct issues? Which, if any, of these alternatives should ArbCom take?

    To the extent possible, there are sharp limitations on what any committee is able to do, the editing behavior of any editor, especially those who dominate editing with respect to disputed subjects, needs to be addressed specifically with respect to their agendas with respect to disputed articles and the strategy and tactics used in achieving them.

12. Of which of your contributions to Wikipedia are you most proud? Why?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enhanced_interrogation_techniques&oldid=128211193

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Greetings, I like your emphasis on a return to "civility"...but often we see long-time, established editors on Wikipedia getting away with Wiki-Owning and Wiki-bullying, and it seems that rarely is anything done about this (in part because of the power of the bully). "Assuming good faith" seems to be a quaint idea nowadays. Is there a way to have some kind of anti-bullying enforcement without turning every situation into a full-blown "request from the Arbitration Committee"--in short, Wikipedia should have more of an "ombudsman" system where people can turn to try to facilitate compromise and rectify situations before they turn into an "ArbCom"-level dispute.Ryoung122 04:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   One of the pillars of Wikipedia should be that no editor has "power." Assertion of "power" should be grounds for a ban. Abuse of "power" is how Wikipedia has become the biased snake pit that it is. Modest editing, following the basic rules, is what is needed.