Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/MarkBernstein/Questions

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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?

   When I wrote about juvenile loons, I had info boxes specifically in mind. As we all know, they have been the source of infinite controversy and, to all appearances, scant benefit. The absurd and anti-intellectual 400-word limit forced me to cut discussion of the blue-ribbon panel on harassment, but if info boxes again become an issue I would recruit a similar panel of distinguished experts on metadata and the semantic web, most of whom fortuitously are already in my Rolodex. If we can replace info boxes with an appropriate abstraction based on metadata that would be useful to the semantic Web, I’d support their continued existence just as far as the semantic web benefits. Decent metadata that would be useful for the semantic web would require clean semantics and a limited vocabulary. This will eliminate many contentious fields, such as the appalling Wikipedia habit of jew-tagging.

4. 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."

   If you think Eric Corbett is not blocked for breaching his topic ban, then you and I partially agree.
   
   Where were you when I was blocked under precisely the same circumstances? Of course, I had called Arbcom’s preliminary decision “infamous”, where Eric Corbett just called someone a cunt. I was doing what little I could to end the use of Wikipedia to deliver rape and death threats to women whose only transgression was to obtain employment in the software industry. I don’t know what benefit your friend thought might accrue to anyone. Perhaps you were talking, or hunting, or on a journey, or peradventure you were asleep.
   
   As I wrote in my statement, the easiest way to avoid being called a juvenile loon is not to be a juvenile loon. This has the advantages both of being true and of being civil; what your friend so famously wrote had neither. Voters whose support depends on my protection of Eric Corbett in any and all circumstances are numerous, no doubt, but I'm unlikely to be of much interest to them.
   
   Also, voters who think it was a great idea for Wikipedia to display "Did you know that.... Jesus Christ Is Risen” on the main page on Easter Sunday may now skip ahead to find other candidates.

6. Please check your facts. Eric Corbett is not what I would call "my friend". (I hoped for a more general answer to the absurdity that he was blocked in the name of the gender gap for having said that he created featured content in collaboration with women.) Also: it was DYK that ... "Jesus Christ Is Risen Today", clearly marking a quotation, not a fact.

   I used the conventional phrase “your friend” because you've been defending his honor elsewhere on-wiki, and it's nicer than calling him “the gentleman from Missoula” or “the unofficial representative of Eris, Goddess of Discord." Especially as he’s not from Missoula, and that would complicate things even more. We need more pie and less confusion.
   
   As for the general absurdity, topic bans can be made to lead to this sort of absurdity. Eric Corbett is good at that. So am I, though not nearly as proficient as he. I do think that Eric Corbett was wrong to inject himself into GGTF and ought to stay far, far from the topic. I also think that cadres, cabals, posses, and war bands are not helpful on Wikipedia.

Questions from Collect

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?

   No, I don't believe that opening a case requires sanctions.

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?

   The notion of “involved” administrators is a relic of an earlier and simpler time, a time when the administrators’ main cares were childish vandals and isolated zealots. We now face organized insurgencies, some of them dedicated and some of them well funded, and “involved” may no longer be a useful construct.

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?

   Absence: yes, absolutely. Word limits: preposterous. ArbCom specifically and Wikipedia in general have a deeply anti-intellectual streak that holds reading a page or two to be onerous. That said, some Wikipedia editors do run on at preposterous lengths. Some people think I do. Writing a hundred thousand words of repetitious drivel is abusive, and Wikipedia has been far too tolerant of that. In my opinion, if the editor is writing with reasonable care and concision, they ought to have space to speak their peace.

Question from BethNaught

2. To what extent should people who write many GAs and FAs be exempt from WP:CIVIL?

   Either WP:CIVIL applies equally to all, or it applies to no one.

Question from Wehwalt

2. Are you registered on Wikipediocracy or any other site that contains ongoing discussion about Wikipedia? If so, which, and what is your username on each site? Either way, would you pledge to refrain from participation on such sites during your term of office?

   I'm registered on Wikipediocracy as MarkBernstein in order to read discussion about Wikiedia. I'm registered in lots of other places, including Reddit, usually as MarkBernstein. I'm an internet professional; I have accounts that have forgotten the accounts I have forgotten. I don't participate at Wikipediocracy because the discussions there are banal, and I don’t participate (for example) at WikiInAction because they hate my guts. Literally. You could look it up. I don't think it likely that I’d participate at Wikipediocracy, if only because there are so many better place to publish. I write and speak frequently about hypertext research and related areas, and expect to continue to do so. Which reminds me -- thank you for asking! -- my next book will be "Getting Started With Hypertext Narrative", a topic of limited utility here but which perhaps will interest some viewers at home.

4. Thank you for the commercial, right on cue! Is there any username under which you have posted at Wikipediocracy? Just so we're clear

   If it's not MarkBernstein, I literally don't remember. The site's search function says I’ve not posted there. I’ve also never been published in The New Yorker, although Roger Angell did once discuss Red Sox Haiku, a web site I helped put together in the aftermath of Grady Little’s regrettable failure to relieve Pedro Martinez in the 8th inning of the seventh game of the 2003 AL Championship Series.

Question from Yash!

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! 05:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

   Yes; a number of the decisions have been disastrous; that’s why I'm here and why Wikipedia needs so much pie so desperately. GenderGapTaskForce was a mess, obviously. I called the Gamergate decision “infamous” (see my statement for links) and a good deal of the world's press agreed. Lightbreather started in the debris left by GenderGap and made things worse. AmericanPolitics has not, as far as I can see, even begun to come to grips with the real problem, which is the assault on Wikipedia by political organizations and the employment of thugs and posses to drive away any editors who oppose their right-wing agenda. The whole encyclopedia's prevarication over Neelix makes us look like boobies, or maybe tufted titmice.
   
   I'd also like to point out a number of situations where Wikipedia appears to have simply stressed editors past endurance. ArbCom’s mock-judicial trappings make that easy, and our strange attitude toward civility and our embrace of passive-aggressive mockery don’t help at all. I think ArbCom should do a better job of this.
   
   Will that catalog of mishap do for starters?
   
   Many of these blunders share a common thread: the attempt to resolve disputes by focusing on the minutiae of individual diffs without understanding the situation and without seeking advice. “The tree of nonsense is watered with error, and from its branches swing the pumpkins of disaster.” -- Nick Harkaway

Question from Müdigkeit

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work for the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

   None. I’m wildly unpopular, I have no personal cadre, lots of very prominent and powerful Wikipedians have apparently vowed to use my guts for garters. Oh , and look -- Gamergate Headquarters has weighed in to say (among much else) that "I wouldn't have to hate your gut[s], Mark, if you weren't the physical embodiment of living garbage. Anybody who has half a brain, and communicates with you, or who looks at what you've produced will hate you too." If pigs were to fly, sure, I’d be strained -- I’ve got books to write and software to build -- but would soldier along somehow. But let’s stay in touch with reality here.

Questions from MLauba

2. What is your point of view on sitting arbitrators commenting to the press or blogging about cases brought before the committee during their tenure? MLauba ^(Talk) 14:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

   I think that it’s their duty as citizens to comment on the affairs of the day, especially when their position and expertise give them unique insights.

4. Rebounding on your answer to Gerda Arendt's first question, given that Arbcom doesn't create policy by fiat, nor does it judge on content, how is your will to "empanel an panel (sic)" of third party experts tied with a potential seat on the committee? MLauba ^(Talk) 14:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for the proofreading -- getting under that 400-word limit left lots of mess. I'll see to it.
   
   If ArbCom had known what it was doing in Gamergate, they would have foreseen that harassment presented grave challenges, and that simply extending Gamergate to "all gender controversies" would itself create a morass. If ArbCom knew what it was doing when it decided to offer advice to victims of harassment in Lightbreather, the advice it offered might have been good advice. ArbCom has tried for years to pretend that it needn’t understand the subjects on which it rules; Wikipedia can no longer afford that kind of anti-intellectualism.

6. You have in the past expressed strong opinions against various editors and specific topic areas. Could you describe the principles that would lead to recusal?

   The same as for everyone else: a personal interest in the outcome. The recent practice of trying to force GorillaWarfare to recuse herself on everything in order to effectively nullify her election is shameful and embarrassing; I certainly have had my differences with GorillaWarfare, but that’s just wrong.

8. Similarly, you have been recently strongly vocal against some of your potential colleagues on the committee and their various rulings this year. Considering strong disagreements within the committee have been cited as one of the main reason why cases tend to drag on for months, what steps would you make to build bridges and consensus, in particular with those colleagues you have vehemently criticized this year? MLauba ^(Talk) 14:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

   The important thing is to get the right consensus, not simply to arrive at some consensus. Remember: the grave’s a fine and quiet place.
   
   Also, pie.

Questions from Guerillero

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!

You'll enjoy this -- from today in Gamergate Headquarters! MarkBernstein (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, while it seems like lulz [ Mark Bernstein on ArbCom ] would just be another GorillaWarfare, Another Guerillero another SJW on the Arbcom trying to push their POV. You might claim a "hasten the day" objective but in the end nobody will react to him making stupid votes, things will roll on ever deeper into SJWikipedia territory

Subcommittees

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 [this]. 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?

   This seems a reasonable role for arbitrators, and the workload does not seem insupportable. Looking forward, the issues this committee addresses may well increase in frequency and importance, as Wikipedia will likely either take action against harassment or will be required by regulatory agencies to do so.
   
   I also see no objection to passing the baton for this role to a different body.

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?

   An appeal mechanism is needed, and should be more transparent and more accountable than the mad scrum of AN/I and AN. While harassers find sympathy and protection in the ranks of the admins and Unblockables, we need a mechanism for responsible governance. We must accept that, for the present, what we have called “the community” is broken -- torn asunder -- and may not be in a condition to guard its best interests. Again, if ArbCom could be relied upon to depend on facts and to treat volunteers equitably, it would arouse less general condemnation.
   
   That said, the committee’s zany hijinks have led many to think that the best answer would be to disband the whole affair or, barring that, to strip it of its functions. As you know, I’m not unsympathetic to that view, either. And again, I see no great objection to passing the baton for this role to a different body.

Current Disputes and Cases

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

   Bans from the project are reasonable and desirable when a volunteer is no longer cost-effective -- when they consume more resources than they contribute. Wikipedia is too slow to separate itself from established and influential editors who may once have been valuable but who are now a burden. In many situations, however, prompt and sympathetic intercession would avoid the need for bans, and defusing the mock-judicial tone and high seriousness that encrust Arbcom cases would help a lot.
   
   Speaking of loons, Wikipedians frequently go to the wall over issues that astonish onlookers -- details of info boxes, the proper English transliteration of the names of Japanese toys. Some apparent content disputes entail fundamental questions about the purpose and organization of the Encyclopedia, such as whether it is or is not OK to use the Wikipedia to drive women out of the software industry. There exist right answers to many questions -- not all, but many; ArbCom should not have pretended otherwise. When in doubt, do the reading and get expert advice.
   
   Expertise would also defuse the heat editors feel when their work is threatened. If an editor knows she is correct on the facts, she should be confident that she’ll prevail, even in if an Unblockable on a frolic of his own takes the other side. If an editor is confident that she is correct on a matter of morality and common decency, she should be confident again that she will be supported. As things stand, if you yourself weren't a powerful and well-connected editor, how comfortable would you be? Knowing that ArbCom will get it right would reduce tension, and the example of applying expertise would empower administrators who are trying to bring order to areas of contention.

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?

   First, we need to decide whether civility is still a pillar. This committee has treated it as a desirable behavior for strangers but as entirely optional for friends and familiars; that's got to stop.
   
   Administrators need support and they need to be proactive in managing discussion and enforcing civility in contentious areas. Gamergate, for example, was a textbook example of what not to do. It still is.
   
   Innocent merriment can help. Pie can help. Getting help for people who need it can help.

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

   Yes -- and I'm afraid that there's likely to be far, far more of this than it seems. We have extraordinary trouble dealing with small-fry extortion scheme, juvenile criminal conspiracies, and the whole booby hatch; if large PR agencies and unscrupulous political campaigns are not pursuing similar strategies, they soon will.
   
   We begin by resolving simply that the rules apply equally to everyone, and observing that resolution with scrupulous care. Admins, of course, should be held to a higher standard.

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

   Absolutely. But the pseudo-legal language has got to go; tell people what they did wrong in plain language.
   
   ArbCom seems almost entirely limited to sticks; it needs carrots. Many intransigent editors can be persuaded to deescalate or to take a break if they are confident that core principles they value will not be trodden underfoot. Recognition and opportunities to make valued and conspicuous contributions could be helpful. At the same time, those who are simply lost to the project should be shown the door with minimal fuss.
   
   Until the formality and mock-judicial trappings are dispensed with, the committee needs to address people with scrupulous courtesy and respect. Lightbreather, for example, did not need the offer of a “mentor” at the end of the whole humiliating affair: children have mentors, and she’s not a child. She needed a bodyguard and an advisor. The offer should have been made at (or before) the outset, presented respectfully and equitably, in an environment where she could be confident that further harassment would not be tolerated.

Insider Baseball

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

   Not that I have seen, but you have more perspective on that than I, and I'd welcome your thoughts. My impression is that it gives partisan editors an additional opportunity to heighten tensions while failing to assist the drafters significantly.
   
   There’s clearly a serious problem in drafting, though, as very ill-advised draft decisions have been published to unfortunate effect.

Questions from David Bradley

2. Can you elaborate the bit of one of your above answers where you state that "the assault on Wikipedia by political organizations and the employment of thugs and posses to drive away any editors who oppose their right-wing agenda?" Which organizations are you referring to? Which users are hired thugs? And what, if anything, would you do about this if you were elected to ArbCom?

   Gamergate is one conspicuous example. Its success has provided a blueprint to every unscrupulous political campaign and every major PR agency.
   
   What would I do? A good start would be to ensure that open harassment and extortion are seen to be costly strategies that are unlikely to succeed. Punishing harassers, rather than their targets, would be an excellent way to start.
   
   In the meantime, we ought to get more benefit from those brigaded accounts and sock farms. There are plenty of articles on Australian shrubs that need attention, our coverage of 19th and 20th century literature is not what it should be, and our coverage of the history of science is far from complete.

4. I was hoping for some actual specifics. You've made some specific charges about people being driven away by hired thugs. You make reference to open harassers, extortion, and a vague reference of "success" by "Gamergate." These examples are neither specific nor clear.

Ideally, an arbitrator must be able to make their decisions based on actual evidence and not vague and unsupported accusations.

In that light, can you provide actual evidence for your various assertions? Specifically, in the context of answering my question, you seem to be :saying that the Gamergate organization has hired thugs to drive people off of wikipedia and that this campaign has met with success.

1. You mistake me. The Gamergate people didn't need to hire thugs; they had them handy. “Next time she shows up at a conference we … give her a crippling injury that’s never going to fully heal … a good solid injury to the knees. I’d say a brain damage, but we don’t want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.” [1] This, incidentally, is the woman who learned she was a Gamergate target when we published a death threat on her bio page. That page has quieted down a lot -- it hasn't needed a single oversight in 24 hours.
   
   With regard to the underlying question -- in the unlikely event you want an answer -- my doctorate’s in chemistry and I’m a convinced physical scientist. I believe in evidence; I don’t believe in covering your eyes and pretending that we can't stop this. Regrettably, some of us don’t want to stop this.
   
   Speaking of zombies -- hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! 30 edits lifetime -- most last January, and then here were are, headed straight to this page. Isn’t that adorable!

2. You don't appear to have answered the question at all. You specifically referred to a campaign to drive editors off of wikipedia. You have stated that Gamergate is one such organization. I asked you for evidence of this and you post an article that, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with a wikipedia editor. It makes reference to some anonymous post from a website that gets 22 million unique visitors a month. I googled the post and found that the threat was condemned by the few people that actually responded to it, which hardly sounds like any sort of campaign.

In short, your evidence not only wasn't relevant to the question, but wasn't compelling in the slightest.

And so I must ask you, since it is very common in ArbCom cases for people to present loads of diffs that are a misrepresentation of the actual facts, why should someone vote for you if you can't properly, impartially, and logically evaluate evidence for claims?

Outrage isn't a substitute for facts.

1. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for coming.

Questions from GrammarFascist

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.

   I'm: male white atheist Jewish Bostonian. My hearing is lousy. Class is a tricky construct; in Fussel’s categorization I’m an X. My CV is on my weblog, along with capsule reviews of my reading for the past ten years and lots more. I make pretty good scones and bad jokes.

2. Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.

   Pro: look at the mess the administrators have made of things! Con: A small minority of administrators do an incredible amount of hard work, often under very trying circumstances. I myself have been required betimes to be one of those trying circumstances. The good ones deserve honors, and Wikipedia has few to offer. Getting a handle on harassment and extortion may require us to reign in rogue administrators in the future, and that sort of discipline may come best from colleagues they know well.
   
   Then again, look at the mess. My goodness.

Thanks for responding, MarkBernstein. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions from LLefleur

2. Following up on GrammarFascist's question, would you be opposed to disabling yourself in some way for the duration of your term? It wouldn't have to be permanent.

   My day job is hypertext research. Please see the answer immediately below.

Question from Worm That Turned

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?

   My day job is hypertext research; please see the question immediately above. Go ahead -- take a look, and come back here. I'll wait.
   
   This is the sort of charming thing you get on Wikipedia today, just being an editor. It wasn’t like that in the old days when giants walked the Crum, but it's the reality now. It’s not pleasant and it's not civil, and it's clear that the admins cannot do anything about it, not if you're a low-life like me.
   
   Let's also be serious. The dark side of being an arbitrator is very dark indeed, but it’s not going to be my problem, not in this Wikipedia, not unless pigs fly.
   
   Still, this is a very real question and a very real problem. ArbCom has made its problems worse by relying on its mock-judicial trappings and improvised press releases instead of writing decisions that could command respect. .
   
   I'd hate to be an arbitrator. But I hate to see Wikipedia discredit hypertext and the open Web.

   Thanks for your answer Mark. I appreciate the time you've taken to write it. I might well be back with more Worm^TT(talk) 09:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Biblioworm

2. Do you have experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?

   When was the last time the arbitration committee resolved a dispute?
   
   Take Gender Gap Task Force: what was resolved? Take Gamergate (please!): an offsite gang asked ArbCom to ban "the five horsemen of wikibias." ArbCom complied, presumably hoping for peace and quiet: how did that work out? Take Lightbreather: that was “resolved” by banning the irate harassment victim, which gained admins a modicum of quiet at the cost of discrediting the entire project [[2]]. We pretend that ArbCom mediates and brings calm; we also pretend there will be cake.
   
   To resolve our problems, we have to address them. It’s not enough to say, “Gosh!i It would be great if the community would do something about harassment.” If ArbCom wants to do something to help the targets of harassment, it could begin by helping the targets of harassment. It could punish the harassers. If ArbCom wants to stop the use of Wikipedia to drive women out of software, it needs to stop the use of Wikipedia to drive women out of software.
   
   But sure, I run a small company, I’ve been program chair of a number of high-stakes conferences, I’ve been part of a ton of program committees, and the world is full of disputes. I’m not the world’s most gifted manager, but I manage somehow. I believe in consensus -- real consensus, not the horrible imitation of consensus we so often see here, but consensus that is not merely the product of rival gangs exhausting themselves on the playground.

Question from Brustopher

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?

   Wikipedians who support harassment and extortion fetishize WP:OUTING because it gives them greater scope for harassment and extortion.
   
   I respect the Wikipedia tradition that valorizes anonymous editing, and I recognize that it is valuable to editors working under repressive regimes or in difficult circumstances. That tradition is worth preserving, if preservation is consistent with the survival of the project. I am not convinced that irresponsible editing can be reconciled with the survival of the project. I am not an expert in online identity and I can be dissuaded, but I am currently inclined to believe that if Wikipedia does not find a way to control harassers, society can and will either end the project or end anonymous editing, I'm very willing to consider alternatives, but harassment and extortion must must be stopped.

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?

   No. (This has been an episode of simple answers to simple questions.)

   ---

   
   
   Let us begin by noting that your case picture is derived from an actual case, but neither you nor I have access to all the secret evidence in that case. We'll assume, for the sake of this discussion, that there is no secret evidence that substantially alters the picture here.
   
   Wikipedia must not prioritize WP:OUTING beyond sense and reason and decency. Anonymous editing is nice, but harassment is not. If we continue down the sorry road that this benighted ArbCom has set us upon, someone will be killed. Society will not then excuse us because we really, really wanted to preserve WP:OUTING. Wake up, people.
   
   That said, why did “Alice” post at Wikipediocracy? Surely, because so many Wikipedians cannot and do not trust ArbCom to understand issues thoroughly and to do the right thing, rather than supporting pals they've known for years.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

2. Why did you not run for adminship first.?While it is not necessary for every arb to Block,delete,protect,oversight or use Checkuser as others can do it. But How will get access as a non admin to deleted material which is necessary for every Arb as in most of the cases evidence involves deleted material.This is absolutely essential to take a decision.?

   As I have said above, I am reportedly wildly unpopular at Wikipedia and even more wildly unpopular at Gamergate -- and Gamergate is actively working to brigade Wikipedia. It is inconceivable that I would pass RfA as currently constituted. I think I'd be a capable and valuable admin, but that’s not going to happen.
   
   One of the most senior and respected arbitrators just wrote, “It'd be very interesting to see what sort of job ArbCom's greatest critics make of arbitrating.” He also asked shortly afterward, “What action should arbitrators take against bullies with blogs, bullies with extensive press contacts, and bullies with fan clubs of bullies?” I think I’m understood to be the “bully with a blog,” though a “bully” is usually the fellow with power and numbers -- the fellow who has a dozen colleagues writing one press release and a multimillion-dollar foundation writing another, all to denounce one computer scientist whose weblog, normally a sedate backwater of NeoVictorian software and literature, took a few moments to point out ArbCom’s infamous encouragement of harassment. He’s right, though, in saying that critics ought to express willingness to pitch in.
   
   I’ve certainly been very critical of ArbCom’s indifference to harassment and extortion. This is the place where, ultimately, the community discusses ArbCom and its actions. If that discussion does not happen here, it will eventually take place in legislative hearings. It is already taking place in the court of public opinion.
   
   Wikipedia policy must not merely be a question of whom we like, of who’s a nice fellow with whom we’ve learned to feel comfortable. With regard to the pragmatic question, I believe there exist policy options to facilitate the work of arbitrators who happen not to be administrators; if there are not, then either there need to be such options or policy needs to be amended to require, as it currently does not require, that arbitrators be drawn from the ranks of administrators.

Questions from Antony–22

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?

   The generations who concluded that freedom of speech was a right were studious in their adherence to civility, and indeed to a very severe and formal courtesy. They did this, in part, in reaction to the dangerous violence of previous generations, a violence that still simmered just below the surface of genteel society.

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?

   Not only are incivility and harassment not the same thing, they're completely different things.
   
   A harasser can, with studied and formal courtesy, malign and threaten you. They can follow you wherever you go, whispering base slanders against you. They can contact your employers and urge that you be dismissed, but writing in the most civil and polite terms.
   
   When I was invited to speak about Wikipedia to a small seminar at a one of the world’s great faculties of computer science, numerous letters were addressed to the dean and chancellor denouncing my invitation and urging that the professor who had arranged my lecture be dismissed. As far as I know, these letters were civil.

6. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately, often leading to articles with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. 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 on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. (The press likes succinctness too, so no more than a few paragraphs worth of text.)

   I did, in fact, write a very similar document -- a discussion of the preliminary decision for the Gamergate Case [3]. It was polemic rather than primer, and written as critique rather than defense, but I think it may serve. The press, on the whole, seems to have liked it.
   
   But you choose your question well! What is “AE2” about? As I write this, I’ve followed the discussion but I’ve not yet seen the preliminary decision. I certainly don’t know what ArbCom thinks this case is about.
   
   Wikipedians have often expressed great vexation at minor and technical mistakes in press coverage, which they feel vitiates the whole. It is a great mistake to take too much comfort from mistakes. Emma Paling’s article in The Atlantic [4] addressed Wikipedia's Hostility to Women; this is a very real problem [5] and Paling addressed it well within the constraints of space, audience, and Wikipedia’s arcane and esoteric governance.

Because it came up elsewhere, I'd like to clarify that this question does not cover the proposed or actual decision, but about how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed. I'm not sure if this affects your answer at all, but I wanted to be sure to make the same clarification to everyone. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

2. More generally, do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under scrutiny? 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 me made more effective?

   That particular press release, though personally very flattering, was probably not a very good idea, and It was not, in my opinion, well executed.
   
   ArbCom possesses a natural channel well-suited to explaining its decisions: the decisions themselves. Not only have some recent decisions been obscure to reporters; several have been obscure to everyone. Yesterday’s proposed decision in Arbitration Enforcement Two, for example, has veteran admins and at least one arbitrator scratching their heads. Since nobody knows what ArbCom wants, enforcement is capricious, admins are frightened, and everyone is confused. It’s not just the reporters.

4. 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?

   I believe events may have overtaken your premise.
   
   Some years ago, Wikipedia was indeed becoming more attractive to professionals, scholars, and academics. These people are, after all, engaged in the vocation that is Wikipedia’s calling, the dissemination of knowledge. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is no longer attractive or even viable for scholars; the dangers of harassment and extortion are great and the rewards are elusive.
   
   On the other hand, a different class of professional editors with very different standards of conduct have indeed appeared: the harassment extortion conspiracies associated with criminal gangs like Gamergate and with major PR efforts by corporations and governments. These do have a different standard of conduct: for example, one such organization commented in their off-wiki voter guide yesterday that “MarkBernstein = Evil Corrupt Jew. He must be stopped. He must be killed.” (This fellow later claims to be a navy SEAL, although the fact that he doesn’t know how to spell “guerrilla” casts some doubt on the proposition.)
   
   But, seriously, the threat to established editors doesn’t come from the arrival of tweedy professors; it comes from the arrival of gangs of insatiable trolls and large PR operations. The current ArbCom has consistently pretended that they're dealing with matters of merely personal behavior; this view is insupportable and threatens the continuation of the project. If not addressed soon, established editors will have nothing recognizable to edit. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Rcsprinter123

2. In your own words, please explain the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and why its existence is necessary. And what, if any, changes or reforms would you support regarding the structuring and processes of Wikipedia's arbitration system?

   Arbitration is occasionally necessary to resolve protracted disputes about conduct, disputes that the community cannot resolve itself. Arbitration further exists to hear appeals, and to deal with conduct issues which, because they involve confidential information, cannot be resolved in public.
   
   ArbCom ought also to lead the community where leadership is necessary, and to take care to ensure that Wikipedia serves the public interest.
   
   Arbcom’s mock-judicial tone is, in my opinion, unhelpful to the committee while making it look foolish. Its procedures are well adapted to resolving individual disputes among petulant children; when faced, as Wikipedia is now faced, by organized and capable efforts to pervert the project through extortion and harassment, exclusive focus on personal transgression can obscure the underlying evil. The committee is reluctant to seek advice and counsel, which has led it to enter avoidable morasses and to offer bad advice. It appears clear that arbitrators are overworked, that their communication channels are not ideal, and that their support staff is not adequate to the task.
   
   Finally, ArbCom is a small committee elected by the community and capable of acting privately when private action is needed. This has aroused the community’s distrust; ArbCom has not explained itself well when it could, and has often failed to explain itself at all. The format of decisions, and their mode of public discussion, make matters worse, not better; readers are often left to wonder, “What were they thinking?” ArbCom should also be active in helping Wikipedians who need assistance; its ability to act discretely on behalf of the community could give it a unique ability to secure aid for those who need it.

Question from DoggySoup

2. Should people who have undergone frequent and/or serious disciplinary action such as desysopping or numerous blocks be allowed to apply for bureaucratic placements in Wikipedia?

   Welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like you're a new user, which makes it remarkable that you know the term “desysopping”. Of course, you might be a sock puppet, but then why would you be socking here? Are you a banned user? I'm not sure what you mean by a “bureaucratic placement,” or who would deny the Wikipedia community the right to choose whoever they prefer to mop the floors.

2. Your editing is mainly focused on a formerly political article, and the rest of your activity is mainly in the administration boards and talk pages. Why should anyone vote for someone who is clearly a single issue candidate?

   Because they care about the future of the project.
   
   Wikipedia’s infamous indulgence of misogynist harassment and its embrace of extortionate behavior must stop; either the encyclopedia will stop it, or society will stop the project.
   
   I edit a range of articles from computer science biographies and ancient history to American politics. The Gamergate pages, which include perhaps a dozen very active pages, have consumed a vast amount of time in the past year, in part because Gamergate has flooded those pages with an army of zombie accounts, aided by a supportive and prolific administrator and further assisted by the shameful carelessness of the current ArbCom. Not many people can edit broadly while staying abreast of talk pages that exceed a quarter of a million words; ArbCom apparently did not bother to do so, but someone must.
   
   Harassment and extortion are not limited to Gamergate. We’ve seen abundant evidence in other ArbCom cases -- Lightbreather, Qworty, GenderGap -- and we know there's lots more.
   
   Also, I am the only candidate who has promised pie.

2. Should ArbCom have more or less power in dealing with administration?

   I don’t know what you’re asking. ArbCom has whatever power the Community delegates to it, and whatever authority the WMF assigns it.

Questions from Ryk72

Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

2. The en.Wikipedia community has been likened to that of a gaol (US:prison), with members of various gangs aggressively supporting each other in disputes, which are policed by trusted inmates. Do you agree with this view? If so, why so? If not, why not? To what extent are the behaviours which lead to this view enabled by AN/I, AE & ArbCom?

   citation needed My first impression is that this is neither an exact or helpful simile, either for thinking about Wikipedia or for thinking about prisons.

4. Do you believe that our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution? If so, is this a good or bad thing? If bad, what role should ArbCom play in addressing this?

   To start with, ArbCom should dispense with its absurd pseudo-judicial trappings. These may have once helped keep order, but today they make ArbCom and Wikipedia appear ridiculous. As I have said elsewhere, more pie is needed.

6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?

   In practice, WP:BOOMERANG lends itself to extortion. In principle, it's useful to keep petulant children from flooding the system with tendentious or frivolous complaints.

8. We see regular use of WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK to justify indefinite blocks of new editors entering contentious topic spaces, without those editors being explicitly linked to banned accounts. Is this use justified? If so, why so? If not, why not?

   So much information about sock puppets is necessarily private that it is difficult to express a blanket opinion. The sock puppet problem may be much, much more serious that many people think.

10. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Remedies, ArbCom implemented a "500/30" limit on edits to the Palestine-Israel (the 3rd topic space in which this remedy has been used). What are the positives & negatives of this remedy as written? Would a more technical/formal implementation (akin to semi-protection) be an improvement? What other improvements, if any, might be made?

    When 500/30 was originally proposed, I believed it would prove entirely inadequate to the task. It has not in fact been sufficient at Gamergate, but it has certainly helped greatly. In the end, more will be required.

12. A hypothetical editor, involved in a contentious topic space, regularly derails Talk page discussion with personal views on the subject, anecdotes of their off-Wiki involvement in the topic, epistemological first principle reasoning for exclusion of material, "hatting" of discussions, and snide attacks on new editors. Administrators have failed to address this editor's behaviour; WP:AE has failed to address the editor's behaviour. What should be done?

    Given the hypothetical picture, I'd wonder why all of the hundreds upon hundreds of administrators had felt their intervention was not required. I’d then read these discussion pages with some care in order to ascertain whether the editor was helping or damaging the encyclopedia. I expect this would be an excellent situation for pie, and perhaps for innocent merriment,

14. Would you be prepared to recuse from 1/3rd of cases, and encourage other Arbs to do likewise, so that each case might be addressed faster, and by fewer Arbs?

    There are lots of possibilities.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from EvergreenFir

2. To put my questions into context and saying without passing any judgment, I think it is fair to say you have been "close" to some of the cases before the arb com in the past year and have strongly held beliefs about some of the subjects of those cases. Do you feel yourself willing and able to recognize when you may be too close or involved with the subject of a case? If such occasions arise or cases where you feel you cannot remain relatively neutral, are you willing to recuse yourself? If not, how would you justify your participation in such cases?

   Absolutely.
   
   I have, I trust, been quite clear that I believe the greatest challenge facing Wikipedia today are organized, systematic harassment and extortion. I have opposed harassment and would continue to do so as an arbitrator, were pigs to fly. Any arbitrator who views harassers and extorters as equivalent to or interchangeable with their victims ought, in my view, to resign.

Thank you for your time! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Dcs002

2. "None. I’m wildly unpopular, I have no personal cadre, lots of very prominent and powerful Wikipedians have apparently vowed to use my guts for garters" Did you mean this literally? Do you really want to be part of ArbCom? You would soldier on, but would you soldier on if the case was about something you didn't feel personally passionate about?

   In my view, work needs to be done. I'm willing to do it. I'm passionate about that.

4. Follow-up: That quote was from your response to how many hours per week you would put into ArbCom. You would really work "none"? Again, did you mean this answer literally? If not, could you give an answer that is more meaningful to that question? Is there a cap you would put on your work? A minimum you would commit to? Or maybe a set of circumstances by which you would decide? I think that question gets at the fact that being an arbitrator would require a meaningful commitment of your time - your personal time. Thoughts?

   I believe the question what how many hours a week I expected to devote to ArbCom. I answered, honestly, that I do not expect to be elected. I went on to say that were pigs to fly, I would find the necessary time, despite my professional commitments. I mean that, and it's a sincere offer.
   
   I've given some thought to the question. I've already demonstrated that I'm less vulnerable than many Wikipedians to extortion and intimidation -- by the way, has any previous ArbCom candidate received a public death threat? Is that a common occurrence?
   
   I have also given some thought to reforms in process and procedure that would help ArbCom work more efficiently and reach more intelligent and intelligible decisions. The blue-ribbon panel on harassment is one of those suggestions; instead of spending countless hours hashing out inferior advice about harassment or equality, we could start with the best advice available. Much more could be done along these lines.
   
   But let’s face facts: as an arbitrator, I think I might make a very real contribution to the project, but it's very, very unlikely that the project will accept the offer. Bluntly put, I'm against harassment and extortion: many Wikipedians are not.

6. Do you think we have too many admins? (Yes, this is a leading question, because I do think so, and I think many see it as a promotion or a badge of honor (or superior rank) rather than a great responsibility to protect the encyclopedia and encourage new members. I see reverts, followed by threats, followed by old friends rolling their eyes together about how some people just don't get it.) Do you think we have an adequate process and supportive environment for new users to challenge, appeal, or just question the actions of an admin without just hearing from that admin's friends, and without being treated like a stupid child?

   We have lots of admins. Many are inactive. Some are not very helpful. Some are very problematic.
   
   Admins do not receive the support they need from ArbCom. Admins need clear judgments, clearly explained; ArbCom too often gives them pseudo-legal incantations and homespun homilies. Admins need clarity; Arbcom often prevaricates. Admins need to know that ArbCom will understand the deeper questions, not merely float upon a see of tiny diffs. Admins need to know that policy applies to everyone -- even to old pals.

8. What do you think of requiring WP:BEFORE prior to prodding or nominating AfD's? Shouldn't the nom have to demonstrate that the article is not 'fixable' before trying to delete it? Should there be a minimum amount of time allowed for a new article to be developed before it is nominated? (Literally, a few hours is all some articles get - articles on obviously notable topics.) At what point would a user merit sanctions for over-aggressive deletion nominations? (Sometimes it seems to be a mission for people to score as many deletions as they can.) In the present climate, which I would describe as deletionist, do you see a role for stub tags?

   I agree that the gamification of AfD should be discouraged. If we could get some breathing room from extortion and harassment, an important conversation could be started on planning the overall shape of the encyclopedia, bringing together Wikipedians with the best thinking in epistemology, Web science, big data, library science, and the histories of ideas. The ad hoc tangle of policy leaves Wikipedia with some odd tangles; it may be easier, for example, to make a case for notability for a porn actress or a utility infielder than for a computer scientist. Not all this lies within ArbCom’s ambit, of course, but ArbCom should provide leadership and help obtain resources.

10. Can you persuade me (or at least assure me) that you would passionately defend our encyclopedia against threats other than the blatant criminal acts you have described? If a case came to ArbCom that involved an issue that is not something you have talked about here, would you just sit that one out? I see ownership, bullying by a very small minority of admins who are nonetheless very active, extreme deletionism, and a rather depressing lack of cooperation as far more widespread than the issues you have spoken of, though of course they are far less severe, case by case. Yet I think they do a lot more to undermine the cooperative nature of this worldwide creation, threatening to make it a representation of the self-appointed elite who believe know what they are doing, and those who disagree are just ignorant. Articles should not be written by one person, with that person having veto power over every edit. People boast about having created so many articles and brought so many articles to GA or FA status, but I consider that a complete failure of our fundamental mission of collaboration. No single editor should take or receive credit for such things. Even if they have made 99% of the edits, it represents a failure, and a continuation of our elitist and exclusionary attitude toward new members and their contributions. (Stepping off my soapbox and sliding it over to you.) Please comment, and thank you!

    I'm broadly in agreement with you; fostering more collaboration is vital.
    
    On a personal note, I'm not really a single-issue candidate. I've been working on hypertext research for a long time, and I've made some small contributions. The breadcrumbs that let you navigate through Wikipedia subsections originate from my 1988 paper “The Bookmark and the Compass.” I think the tabs on the top of this page might originate with that paper, though Akscyn’s KMS or Halasz and Trigg’s NoteCards might have gotten there first. I've done a lot of work on hypertext writing and Web science. I'm not a social media expert, much less an expert son harassment; stopping harassment on Wikipedia needs to be done, and I'm willing to do my bit.
    
    My approach to finding solutions to problems like those you mention begins with understanding the problem and learning everything that we can about it. I don’t believe we can afford to pretend that everything can be addressed as a matter of petty misbehavior.
    
    Of course, lots of this also lies outside ArbCom’s jurisdiction. But ArbCom can lead, it can hep get resources, it can focus attention, and it can set an example of tackling hard problems with diligent study and with studied care for everyone affected.

Thanks so much! Just the one follow-up question above (#2), and a brief comment to clarify. I know ArbCom can do little without a case being brought to them. Most of my questions were meant to presuppose a hypothetical case in front of ArbCom and to get an idea of your thoughts and processing. Dcs002 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Yecril (talk)

2. You have advised possible volunteers against getting involved in the Wikipedia project in your blog entry. Why don’t you follow your own advice?

   It once was common for college professors, high school teachers, and even elementary school teachers to urge their students to improve Wikipedia. This once was a safe and pleasant way for people to participate in the community of scholarship, helping to harness intellectual work that otherwise would be wasted. It was also once common for scholars to participate here, and of course the project has benefited mightily from their aid.
   
   Today, if your students volunteer for Wikipedia and have the misfortune to stumble into a controversial area, they may well be subjected to threats, harassment, and extortion. If you are a scholar and you venture into a controversial area, you will be subjected to the same dangers and may also encounter concerted efforts to damage your career. We all know this.
   
   I added Gamergate to my watchlist as a favor to some colleagues who were being hounded; here, I thought, was a small bit of work I could do fairly well, work that would make things a bit easier for them. I greatly underestimated the amount of time this would entail and its personal cost. Who knew that the talk page archives would run to a quarter of a million words? Who knew that I’d receive anti-Semitic death threats for having the temerity to run for ArbCom? Who knew people made anti-Semitic remarks in this day and age? I’m not a kid, and I honestly don’t recall ever seeing an unambiguously anti-Semitic attack before I became active in Wikipedia.
   
   We don’t have a policy against sexual harassment. We don’t have a practical policy against extortion. We pretend to have a policy against using other sites to gain an advantage on-wiki, but the policy is unenforced and unenforceable. It’s taken this year’s ArbCom weeks to agree to a toothless finding that editors ought to be treated with equality and respect. We are now famous for being the site where “the best way not to be called a cunt is not to be one,” an encyclopedia with thorough coverage of thigh gap and whale tail and “tumorous titties,” a site where it’s far easier to establish notability for a porn star or a utility infielder than for a scientist. Wikipedia is not a healthy place to send students, and it’s a dangerous place for any professional.
   
   This will be fixed. Wikipedia can fix it; I'm willing to help. Whether Wikipedia wants to fix it -- whether we have harassment and extortion because many Wikipedians like to harass their opponents and find extortion profitable -- is the central question in this year's election.

Question from DILNN1

2. You mention pumpkin and pecan. What is your position on fruit pies?

   Unless I’m mistaken, pumpkins are the fruit of cucurbita pepo. If there's a question of whether the pumpkin is a fruit, we could check with a botanist, or look it up in McGee. I mention this because it’s an approach we’ve seldom seen from Arbcom this year: when facing a difficult question, first find the right answer. You can sort through the rules and rigamarole later, but if you don't where you want to go, you’ll wind up with the Gamergate decision. And no one wants that!
   
   Fruit pies are also very welcome on Wikipedia. Apple is great, though we should not over-emphasize that quintessentially American confection. Hyper-regional fruit pies -- key lime, sour cherry, Maine wild blueberry -- can be excellent. I'd also point out that there's nothing wrong with meat pies, either on the English or the Australian model; in fact, the Australian meat pie is something I'd like to study properly. Do those pies they serve beside Circular Quay prevent stress as well as good old apple, peach, and pecan?

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

2. Your question