Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/AKS.9955/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: I HAVE WITHDRAWN MY NOMINATIONS. PLEASE DON'T POST ANY ELECTION RELATED QUESTIONS ON THIS PAGE. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUIRES, THEN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DROP A MESSAGE ON MY TALKPAGE. THANKS, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from SpacemanSpiff[edit]

  2. These are questions that would've been asked at RfA but we're here and not there. Can you explain why you abandoned your old account User:Arunsingh16?
    Hello SpacemanSpiff, WP:CLEANSTART in good faith and best intentions. None of the articles created under Arunsingh16 have been edited by AKS.9955. Editor interaction report demonstrates it very clearly. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Can you explain what actions you've taken with regard to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Arunsingh16?
    187 pages were indiscriminately marked for copyright investigations under Arunsingh16 when lots of pages were not even created under this username. For example, these were the only two edits by Arunsingh16 on Jeetumoni Kalita and the edits were CSD and AfD nomination - how is that a copyright violation by Arunsingh16? Another example is this, where a possible vandalism was reverted by Arunsingh16 and this page too fell in the copyright investigation report. Why is reverting vandalism reported as a copyright violation? This is a classic case. ZERO edits by Arunsingh16 on Ravidassia religion and yet this article reflects in the Investigation report.
    Having said that, now the only question I am asking myself is what is the validity of opening such an investigation report which itself is flawed and full of factual inaccuracies? It was an "investigation" and the investigators had to take action; we don't expect the "accused" to be the "jury". The notice on the top of the page clearly reads what is expected of editor. Notice clearly reads "do not please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that....." and the same was followed. Not even a single character was added back and no attempts were made to hinder the "investigation". Trust this answers your question. Let me know if I can be of further help on this subject. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do you understand WP:BLP and can you explain this edit of yours in the context of that policy as well as this discussion?
    Well, the article you have quoted is about a "murder case" and not a BLP so I am not sure how do I relate both. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gerda Arendt[edit]

Thank you for stepping forward!

  2. Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?
    Hello Gerda Arendt, Prima facie, I think everyone on the article talk page had one common objective - collection and display of relevant and useful information in the article. Where some people differed is the methodology and technicality. Allow me to go one step back from the discussion on that talkpage; what is the objective of an "infobox"? To capture and display important information and highlights about a subject. So if the infobox was serving the purpose, then it should have been retained; if the infobox had erroneous information, then it should have been cleaned up and if the infobox had technical errors, then the infobox should have been corrected.
    Whilst the infobox in Joseph (opera) can be debated either way, I am bit surprised to see that the Infobox on Richard Wagner has been removed with consensus. Being a neutral observer, my opinion is that in case of Wagner, an infobox was certainly more informative for a reader (me included). Whilst Joseph (opera) atleast has a navbox, article for Wagner only has a picture and a signature?? Let's assume that me and you are readers only and have never edited on WP. What would me and you prefer? An infobox with key information OR some lengthy discussion on article talkpage about technicalities and editor jargon that we are not bothered about. I prefer information. Rather than making life easier for an average reader, people got busy with "crossing the t's and dotting the i's". What editors also forgot is that the encyclopedia is built so that an average reader can find it useful. An average reader does not bother about technicalities. The end result in Wagner was that key information was not tabulated (which could have easily been).
    I am sorry to have dragged Richard Wagner in this discussion but it was important. In case of Joseph (opera) (and I am not going by the popular vote), I am of the opinion that an infobox may be used with apt information. We atleast have a Navbox which gives some "quick read" but in case of Wagner, it was completely washed. I also sensed a bit of "ownership" in Joseph article and rather than focusing on improving the quality of the article, some people were busy pushing POV.
    To sum it up, there is no easy "close" on such mattress however, I would be more inclined in retaining important templates like infobox and putting it to better use. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Wagner had an infobox until this revert in 2007, which was well before my time here. I was considered disruptive for having suggested to have one to stay on the talk page! The majority of arbitrators then (2013) found that I needed to be restricted. Be careful ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerda Arendt, thanks for pointing out. I did notice that yesterday itself. I am not saying that arbitrators were right and you were wrong OR the other way around. I have simply put my independent opinion, free for any biases and "appeasement" (why I used the word appeasement is that under the circumstances of election, someone might be inclined to go with the popular choice). If I cannot have an independent, unbiased and balanced opinion then I don't think I should be contesting for ArbCom because it will be a sheer waste of everyone's time. I know the risk I took when I supported the info-box, especially in a forum which is full of arbitrators and my views are opposite of what the arbitrators felt then. But then, thats what my judgement is. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, but please keep in mind that your opinion is one thing, seeing a consensus in a discussion a different one, and there may be situations when your view opposes the consensus (not this one, though), when an arbitrator should be strictly neutral.
  • Agreed. Actually me and you said the same thing - being neutral. I have also stated that several times in several different ways. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ("not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."
    At the outset, I find the "punitive action" a bit harsh for a passing statement. Having said that, I am not very clear of what you ask from me. Can you please come back again? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts. I would like to hear if you have ideas how to avoid such an action next time around. I offered some thoughts in August (please follow the link above), how about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Müdigkeit[edit]

  1. How many hours per week do you plan to work for the Arbitration Comitee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Müdigkeit, I currently spend 20-30 hours / week on Wikipedia. If elected, I see myself spending majority of this time on Arbitration Committee. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do you have a very secure email address that can handle several hundred mails per day(and several thousand mails in total if you have to take a small break)?--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what a "secure email address" means? If by secure we mean that my computer / devices is not accessed by others - then yes; I am not only user. If by secure we mean some extra encryption / security on the server level - then no. I use standard gmail like everyone else. I however have complex password which is changed regularly and almost never use a public computer. Trust this answers your question. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Iridescent[edit]

  2. (This sounds flippant and it's not meant to be.) Every other candidate thus far has made a statement regarding why they feel their presence on the committee would be a benefit to Wikipedia; you've just given a list of what you've done, most of which is irrelevant to Arbcom. Do you understand what Arbcom actually does and what you're committing yourself to?
    Good one Iridescent. After writing my nomination, I was actually thinking of adding that, but then left it. See, its very simple a) We all know what Arbcom does and that's the reason why we came here, so why increase the word count. b) Obviously every candidate will say how valuable their contribution to Arbcom would be. I just did not want to add carefully worded "promises and claims" and instead kept the write-up small and focused on what I have done so far. Trust this explains. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What, in you opinion, was the best achievement of this year's Arbcom?
    Honestly, I never thought about it (I know strategically it is a wrong answer but then that's the truth and is honest answer as well). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ‑ iridescent 20:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect[edit]

  2. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
    Hello Collect, Yes and Yes (for both parts of your question). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?
    Well, why should I judge him based on a simple request made? I don't see anything wrong when the administrator stated "....but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me". This statement should not influence the decision and merits of the case should. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?
    Obligation = No. As far as raising the limit is concerned, yes it may be raised but with caution that the enhanced word limit does not become counterproductive. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BethNaught[edit]

  2. To what extent should people who write many GAs and FAs be exempt from WP:CIVIL?
    Hello BethNaught, my personal view is that no one should be exempted for WP:CIVIL. It does not matter if the person has written a million GAs and FAs and / or is a Bureaucrat, Administrator or a normal editor; one cannot ignore civility - especially because it is one of the five pillars of WP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Beeblebrox[edit]

  2. While it is possible for a user who is not and never has been an administrator to be a member of the committee, there are sure to be those who would worry that a user who has never held any advanced permisssions or, form the look of it, ever been involved in dispute resolution, may not be qualified for such a position. In other words, although you seem to have done a lot of good content work, you've not been "through the fire" of RFA or adminship, not been tested by the various persons that will begin attacking your character the instant you were to become an arb. what would you say to assuage such concerns?
    Hello Beeblebrox, thanks for your question (incidentally the first I am replying). Well, right after my nomination yesterday, I digged into the results of 2014 and 2013. Out of all the successful candidates, only one was non-admin All successful candidates were administrators and that made me think too why only administrators are being selected / elected for this responsibility. At first I thought that perhaps voters are / were more biased towards the administrators but then on closer examination I realized that was not the case. It all depends on the personal capabilities and past work of the individual and had little to do with the authority levels - so the "qualification" so to say has more to do with a candidate's style of work rather than the authority level he/she holds. Being an admin happens to be coincidental in this case. Well, although not an admin, I have my fair share of being subjected to "character assassination" and have been accused and abused several times (that too at times for a simple revert). Its all a learning curve and as time progresses. As a matter of fact, a very impartial and cruel assessment (+ constructive criticism) of my work and abilities already begun the moment I nominated myself here. Admin or no admin, we all need the character and skills to tell right from wrong, handle situations and dedicate substantial time every week. I hope this answers your question and please do let me know if you have further questions. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Yash![edit]

  2. In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred? Yash! 05:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Yash!, Your question is similar (if not exactly the same) as one asked by Iridescent above. At the cost of sounding repetitive, "Honestly, I never thought about it (I know strategically it is a wrong answer but then that's the truth and is honest answer as well)". Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jim Carter[edit]

  2. Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?
    Jim Carter, although I have see WP:RFAR and related pages several times, I personally have never been involved in one. We all know that some cases "linger on" for months and months. There is no easy, quick and simple answer to what you asked and the solution needs to "evolve" over a period of time rather than just pop up one fine day. I can say only one thing for now; being bold, taking quick decisions and not always following "the popular path" would certainly help. We get too bureaucratic at times and I have seen people change opinions just because that was not the popular choice. If I were to handle it; I would be more focused on, what is the right thing to do and what my judgement is rather than worrying about what others think of my statements. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In 2015, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?
    Hello Jim Carter, thanks for your time. I am taking this question first, since very recently I was involved in Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. You can see my detailed comments and vote on this page at several places; especially this. This will give my views in general on adminship. To answer your question more specifically, I think the removal process should be multi-layered (I am not saying that all of this is not happening currently but I am just summing it up). a) In-activity b) Performance based periodic reviews (very important) c) Self opt-out and d) Abuse of administrator privileges. Out of the four broad points mentioned, only second point will attract community involvement. Arbcom has a very good policy of appointment for 1 or 2 years. Perhaps a 3 to 5 year term for adminship should be considered so that 1) It does not become "grandfather's right" and 2) We weed out the "hat-collectors". I hope I covered your question. Let me know if I missed something here. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?
    Well, the main purpose of Arbitration Committee is to handle issues that cannot be resolved by community discussions / consensus. Over and above this, grant of certain (related) permissions are also handled. I don't think currently there is any overlap nor is there a pressing need for an overlap between what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Jim Carter 15:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Guerillero[edit]

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Subcommittees[edit]

  2. The Audit Subcommittee was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our Check Users and Oversighters. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the functionaries en banc, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?
  4. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

Current Disputes and Cases[edit]

  2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
  4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way. 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?
  6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?
  8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?

Insider Baseball[edit]

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

Questions from GrammarFascist[edit]

  2. Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are cis, trans or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in Triesenberg if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I won't count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force affirmative action. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.
    Hello GrammarFascist, Although my User profile provides all the details but I don't mind writing it down again since you asked.

    My full name is "Arun Kumar SINGH". An Indian, I was born and raised in Varanasi. Attended the Banaras Hindu University and then worked with few airlines in India. Lived and worked in Colombo and Richmond, London for few years before returning to Mumbai where I live currently.

    Single and heterosexual male, currently running my own business (hotel) and aviation consulting. I am sure I don't need to write about what my hobby is. Let me know if there is something else you would like to know. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.

Question from Worm That Turned[edit]

  2. Hi, I'm Dave, I was on Arbcom between 2013 and 2014. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?
    Hi Dave, many thanks for your question and also the word of caution. All I can say is (and having edited on Wikipedia for years) is that I have a fair idea of what I am trying to get into. I hope I will be able to do justice. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Smallbones[edit]

  2. Wikipedia is starting to have a reputation for bullying and misogyny, see, e.g the recent article in The Atlantic by Emma Paling, "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women”.
    Are you willing to take serious steps to stop bullying of editors on Wikipedia? especially bullying directed toward women editors? Is this one of your top 2 priorities? What would you consider to be a more important priority than stopping the bullying? Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Smallbones, Thanks for your question. My priorities are "Be Fair, Be Kind and Seek Facts". Everyhthing else (including Hostility to Women and men) will fall into place. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Biblioworm[edit]

  2. Do you have experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?
    Hello Biblioworm, in my personal life I have held senior positions in several companies (including being COO of three companies). I now run my business and all I can say is I am not new to "disputes" and situations. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Brustopher[edit]

Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

  2. User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on Wikipedia with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Wikipedia user Bar. The Bar account on Wikipedia is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Wikipedia account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of WP:OUTING and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Wikipedia account?
  4. User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her Wikipedia username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Wikipedia." She looks into the account that has uploaded these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Wikipedia User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to Wikipediocracy's forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Wikipedia editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of WP:OUTING as part of their justification for site banning Alice?

Questions from user: Catmando999[edit]

  2. You are fairly green to Wikipedia, starting last year, do you feel you have enough experience to take the demanding position of being on the arbitration committee?
    Hello user: Catmando999, no sir, I am not that green too. Have been on WP for five years now (including my inactive account). To answer your question, yes I think I have enough experience for ArbCom. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I thought that on your candidate statement you said you started last year. Good luck in the election.

Questions from Antony–22[edit]

  2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?
    Hello Antony–22, what has civility (enforcement) got to do with free speech? Does free speech mean being abusive, rude and being uncivil? I don't think so. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing. What is the line between incivility and harassment? How much does incivility, when it doesn't cross the line into harassment, affect our ability to retain editors, including but not limited to its effects on the gender gap?
    Well, we can keep on debating whats what till cows come home. As a community we need to keep the bigger picture in mind and follow the spirit and not the letter (of policies). What we need to ensure is that people don't get abusive, don't insult each other, act without prejudice, don't harass fellow editors (newcomers as well as senior editors), don't discriminate based on sex, region, religion, skin and caste and contribute freely and constructively on Wikipedia. Once when the intentions are clear, the definitions will automatically be a non-issue. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles? For example, do you think that releasing statements, such as been done once on a previous case, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they be made more effective?
    Yes and No both. ArbCom are not employees of Wikipedia and only do voluntary work and hence cannot be (direct) official spokesperson on behalf of Wikipedia to give clarifications to press. Having said that, I would also like to mention that the method adopted in the example cited it very apt. Under extreme circumstances and without citing and ArbCom member, a generic statement / clarification must be issued; primarily with the aim to make Wikipedia and ArbCom's stand clear. Unfortunately, there is no straight answer to this and it largely depends on the situation. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press, of no more than a few paragraphs, on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. Do not cover or express an opinion on the proposed or actual decision, but concentrate on how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.
  10. One last question. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals from academic and cultural institutions. This is perhaps causing some angst that the community and its interactions may become "professionalized" to the exclusion of established editors. Do you feel this fear is warranted? How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

Questions from User:contaldo80[edit]

  2. There is a continued problem on wikipedia with homophobic vandalism - particularly the use of insulting and derogatory language within articles. But also a resistance to covering the issue of homosexuality within articles, despite supporting sources etc. Can you clarify how you would deal with the issue of homophobic vandalism, and whether you are able to demonstrate more generally about how you deal with material concerning homosexuality and sexual orientation in a neutral and objective way? Giving examples where possible.
    Hello Contaldo80, good to see you here. I will take your question in two parts.
    1) Homophobic Vandalism: A vandalism is a vandalism. To simplify matters, I would not assign a further category of sex, sexual orientation, caste, race et cetera to a vandalism and would deal with it on case to case basis (and on merits / demerits) and not judge it based on sexual orientation alone.
    2) Supporting sources: When you mentioned this, I am sure you are referring to our conversation here which is about me reverting your edit (for homosexuality) here. You need to understand that my point is that firstly the edit was "speculative" and secondly there are no online sources to support the speculation. As advised on my TalkPage, I have opened a discussion on the article TalkPage and the community needs to build consensus for the edit. Not my call (alone) to make. I hope I answered what you asked me and do let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. From your answers above it doesn't suggest to me that you have a strong awareness or particular sensitivity relating to the subject of sexual orientation. I didn't ask you to refer specifically to our discussion elsewhere about Ellen Gates Starr, but seeing as you have brought it up here I would like to express my serious concerns about the way that you have dealt with the matter.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contaldo80, you are very much involved in an edit discussion with me and it is a great coincidence that you ask me a question on ArbCom election which is exactly on the same subject and lines (of our edit discussions). Surprisingly I happen to be the only ArbCom candidate you asked a question to and that too after our edit discussions. Whilst you are welcome to evaluate any candidate; you must refrain from initiating such actions arising out of an edit disagreement and based on a prejudice. You are an experienced editor and I don't really need to elaborate any further. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are the only candidate I have genuine concerns about. None of the other candidates have given me cause to worry in the same way. It is simply ill-judged to dismiss this as "prejudice", and I don't like the perceived threat in the last line of your comment. Your questionable handling of the edit discussion above illustrates that I personally do not believe you are fit to become an administrator; and it's important that I put this on the record. I am entitled to hold this opinion, and I am entitled to express it. You reverted an edit because you argued it was not supported by the source; you then admitted that you had not read the source. If I had concerns about other candidates, then rest I assured that I would likewise raise them.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contaldo80, you are engaging in this ArbCom discussion just because I reverted your edit where you wrote Quote "and it has been speculated that Starr was a lesbian who had a particularly close relationship with Addams". Unquote. You need to understand that Wikipedia is not a gossip column / tabloid where one can "speculate" about someone's sexual orientation (read WP:SPECULATION). What you think of me is your personal opinion and there is nothing I can do. Your actions on this page are nothing but a reaction to the edit reverts. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Wikimandia[edit]

  2. Many editors were unhappy with the results of the recent Neelix fiasco, in which the AC closed the case as soon as Neelix resigned as an admin, despite the fact that many of the issues brought up in the evidence page had nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of administrative tools or even his redirect spam, including building walled gardens and violation of WP guidelines concerning advocacy in editing. This led to accusations of a double standard for admins and regular editors. (If a non-admin had done the same, there could be no such easy dismissal as we don't have tools to resign). Neelix never acknowledged or agreed to stop any of this behavior, simply (eventually) apologized for the redirects only and then later resigned with no further comment. There was significant support for at least a topic ban at the ANI. Do you believe a topic ban or other measure should have been applied in this case?
    Wikimandia, thanks for your question. I don't think you noticed but I have withdrawn my nomination. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2015/Candidates/AKS.9955/Questions&oldid=1137496531"