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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

NOTE: Please be aware that I have urgent issues to deal with in my real life at the moment and so answers to questions may be delayed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Antony–22

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

   Enforcing civility enables us to reduce our institutional biases (e.g. by retaining more female editors) and so clearly benefits the project. In the context of Wikipedia that is significantly more important than the right of any individual to free speech.

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?

   I don't think that incivility and harassment are just different points on the same continuum. One can be uncivil without harassing anyone, and one can harass an editor without being uncivil. The evidence presented by editors and would-be editors (not just those who openly self-describe as female) every time this is discussed is that incivility and harassment are both barriers/disincentives to their participation. The project will benefit the most from have the widest possible participation and so we should be enforcing civility and responding to harassment where it happens. However this is not something that is limited to arbcom but something every editor should be doing.

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?

   Generally we should be correcting factual inaccuracies where they are significant. However, those who understand public relations more than I do advise that it is sometimes better not to respond. The job of reducing the reporting of factual inaccuracies outside Wikipedia is however made much harder when factual inaccuracies are repeated without challenge internally - I have lost count of the number of times myself and colleagues have had to do this regarding the Lightbreather case for example.

8. This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that the Arbcom has delegated you 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.

   I would not be delegated as such. If you've seen my comments you will understand that writing succinct, punchy statements is not something I am skilled at.

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?

    This is a complicated question with several aspects. In terms of access to knowledge, the key aspect on Wikipedia is the notability criteria and how they are interpreted. I don't see increased participation by academic and cultural professionals as having a significant impact on this, but it is not something that is within arbcom's scope.
    The only aspect of exclusion of established editors felt by the increased participation of professionals that I am aware of is the increased focus on civility of communication, which I can only view as a good thing (see extensive discussion regarding civility and the gender gap for example). The key thing on Wikipedia is that we should all here to build an encyclopaedia - either directly (e.g. content authors, proofreaders, gnomes, etc) or indirectly by enabling those groups to do their work effectively (e.g. those who work in dispute resolution, template creators and maintainers, etc). To make the encyclopaedia the best we can, we need input from people with as diverse a background as possible (see WP:CSB) and research shows that the best way to enable this is to have a civilised working space where people are made to feel welcome and can contribute without fear of bullying or harassment. Just having been around Wikipedia for a long time does not give you any special rights in this regard - improving the project is always bigger and always more important than individual contributors. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Smallbones

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)

   My first priority is enabling those editors who are improving the encyclopaedia, whether by writing or improving content or improving things for readers, to do so. Part of that does involve making the editing environment good for the maximum number of people, and that does involve doing what I can to stop the bullying of other editors, whoever is doing the bullying and whoever is being bullied. It is important to stress though that what the arbitration committee can do is very limited (we have no jurisdiction anywhere other than the English Wikipedia for example) and can only act on bullying and other harassment where there is clear evidence of who is responsible. It is also worth noting that being the victim of bullying or harassment does not excuse any bad behaviour on your part.

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! 20:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

   I remain disappointed by the handling of the Infoboxes issue, and I'm slightly frustrated by the lack of willingness of some of my colleagues to consider relaxations of Rich Farmbrough's restrictions. For other things, your best bet is just to look at the votes this year where I have been in a minority.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

Thank you for stepping forward! I clicked you thank-you today, you are in a good position. A candidate who is willing to return, amazing! Minority means support for me ;)

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 Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?

   My views on infoboxes are well known, which is why I have recused from all arbitration discussions about them during my first term and I will continue to do so if elected again. As regards to that discussion, it is a good example of why the arbitration case did not solve the problem, but I do not see that it reached a consensus either for or against an infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding: at least one candidate looked at the 2013 discussion, but 2015 is the one I mean, sorry if that was not clear.

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."

   Given that the Arbitration Enforcement 2 case is still open as a result of what transpired following Eric's edit I do not wish to comment on that here beyond noting that the blocking admin made it clear that it was not made for that one edit alone.
   Regarding improvements to Arbitration Enforcement:
   • If enforcing a restriction would not improve Wikipedia it should not be brought to AE - but what counts as an improvement is in some cases subjective (I think adding an infobox to an article is almost always an improvement, others think the opposite)
   • There does need to be a strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED for those who close discussions at AE and for which section people choose to comment in. Being well known to one party of a dispute though is probably not a good standard though, as (for example) Rich Farmbrough and I are well known to each other, but we disagree about as often as we agree and so I am not automatically partial in disputes that he is involved with (he explicitly noted that he didn't see a need for me to recuse from his ARCA request for example). If there is any doubt though it is best to either seek clarification from the parties first or err on the side of caution.
   • Requiring there be at least 24 hours before closure, and a discussion in advance with the editor concerned, are both good if the matter is at all subjective, but where there are bright line matters (e.g. if someone who is topic banned from say United Kingdom-related pages removes three sourced paragraphs from the David Cameron article) then requiring 24 hours seems rather needlessly bureaucratic.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Tryptofish

2. You are running for reelection in a year when many editors have been criticizing ArbCom harshly, so my question to you (and to any other sitting Arbs who may run for reelection) has to do with why you should be reelected. I realize that your statement discusses problems with privacy concerning the email list, but please describe something that you expect to do within the next two years if reelected, that will improve how ArbCom works. Please be as specific as possible. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

   I hope to see the back of a bulk of the workload we currently have regarding user appeals. However, in contrast to some of my colleagues I think it is important that whoever takes it over is prepared for it in terms of both structure and mandate and that point is not here yet.
   
   I would also like to see more flexibility for arbitrators to declare inactivity on individual matters, this would mean cases aren't dragging along waiting for the final few arbitrators to do all the necessary reading and voting. I said I think last year that I was in favour of requiring only a sub-set of say 7 arbitrators for each case, and I still think that something along those lines would help but when it was brought up earlier this year this was a minority view among the committee.
   
   My question to you though is has there been a year when editors have not been criticising ArbCom harshly?

4. Thanks so much. As for your question to me, of course not, but this year appears to be particularly prone to complaints. You seem to me to have described some problems that you would like to see solved, but you haven't really said what you plan to do to actually make those solutions happen. For example, you suggested having a sub-set of arbs, but you did not convince the rest of the Committee to do it. So how would that be different next year? Is there a change that you expect that you could actually succeed at implementing? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   Next year's committee will be a different set of people, who may be more open to subsets of arbitrators hearing cases. However, no single arbitrator can guarantee to change anything as all change requires agreement of at least 7 other arbitrators if not consensus of the whole committee. If any candidate promises they will make any change on their own, I would advise you do not vote for them as they obviously do not understand the nature of being on a committee. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

note that some questions have been split for clarity and numbering may differ from other candidates' answers

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?

   Yes and no respectively. Although it is likely that sanctions will be required if a dispute has reached the level where arbcom is required, it is not inevitable. If it is clear that arbitration sanctions will not be required then the request will not be accepted and no case will be opened.

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?

   I think it very unlikely that someone making such a statement would be considered impartial and uninvolved, but I do not want to speak in absolutes without knowing the full context in which the edit was made. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

6. 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?

   yes, and we have done so at least once this year. The editor needs to communicate with us (publicly or privately) about their intentions though, and the reasons given need to be believable and true. For example if you claim that you will be unable to access the internet for two weeks as you're seeing your son on his death bed in deepest darkest Peru, but then find out that you were actually on an overnight booze cruise to Calais we're not going to be inclined to believe you regarding the need for a delay.

8. 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?

   This is something I've had in the back of my mind for a while. The word limits exist to make our job possible by limiting the amount we need to read and to try and encourage people to be focused (500 focused words are far better for everyone than 2000 words of rambling) and so allowing 1000 words of rebuttal per accusation or per person making an accusation will not happen. What would be more useful I think would be a presumption in favour of granting an extension to people who are facing a lot of different accusations who are not able to fairly respond within 1000 words. Such extensions would still only be given on request though, otherwise we'd just have x more words to read from everybody.

Optional Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

2. Is Terms of Use a policy  ? Do you believe that ArbCom can sanction undisclosed paid editors if there is evidence that they violated TOU ? (Please note several polices have been made by Jimbo/WMF without ENG Wiki consensus like Global ban, Global CU, Global OS, Privacy, Access to nonpublic data and Arbitration and also pointed here)

   I have a different view of paid editing, declared and undeclared, than some other people do. For me whether someone is paid or unpaid is of little relevance, what matters is only whether they are editing in accordance with our policies on content and behaviour. Anyone who is writing good quality NPOV content, making things better for readers, and/or enabling others to do so while maintaining standards of decorum and civility then they should be welcome to edit here. Anyone who is not doing that should be educated, supported and/or encouraged (by carrot and, if necessary, stick) to improve until such time as it is clear they cannot or will not, when they should be blocked or banned as appropriate.

The role of arbcom is to deal with behavioural problems that the community is unable to handle. Enforcing the terms of use is the role of the WMF.

Question from Biblioworm

2. Do you have any experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki? (I know you're an arbitrator, but as I mentioned in the question, I would like examples of successful dispute resolution. If you want to use your ArbCom work as an example, could you demonstrate what you believe to be your best work in resolving disputes?)

   Prior to arbcom most of my work in dispute resolution was off-wiki and so I can't link to it (most of it was offline, by email or on a forum that no longer exists) but I hung around plenty of arbitration cases before my term offering input, the Argentine History case being one example of where I know my suggestion was directly used. This year the peak intersect of my involvement and a successful outcome is probably Kww and The Rambling Man. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for another term of the 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

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 it. 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?

   Other than trying ensure that something is done, I don't really have any strong opinions on what that something is as long as whomever takes it on is prepared for it and has a mandate to carry out the job properly. I didn't serve on AUSC this year and, assuming it has seats for arbitrators in whatever shape it takes going forward, I don't anticipate doing so if I am reelected. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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?

   Whether we have something called BASC is not really important in my view. What matters is who hears the appeals:
   Appeals of CU and Oversight blocks, and of blocks where non-public information is relevant need to be handled by arbitrators. I think that these should continue to be heard by a subset of the committee as at present, but whether that is a subcommittee in name or not doesn't bother me either way.
   Appeals of community blocks and bans for other reasons need to be divested from arbcom (for workload reasons), and there was consensus for that. However, there was not consensus about who or what would replace it, and this needs to happen before anything changes. I think my preferred structure would be a ban-appeals committee, independent of arbcom, whose sole job was to hear these appeals, but the most important thing is that whomever does take it on needs to be prepared for it and have the mandate from the community to do it - and I am not convinced that at the moment anybody except arbcom does.

Current Disputes and Cases

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

   If lesser sanctions have been tried and have failed to solve the problem, then obviously a ban is the only option. Deliberate outing, repeated or egregious harassment or other disruption are all in my view significantly serious that the only proportionate sanction is a site ban. For most other things, less sanctions should be tried first if a sanction is available that is definable and practical and the person affected is willing to cooperate with the 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?

   I haven't looked at what happened with civility paroles recently, but from memory they fell out of favour as they didn't generally work. The community as a whole is getting better at defining what civility is and isn't, and in the future it may be clear enough that a civility parole would be worth trying again, but I don't think we are in that place yet. The best weapon in the arsenal at the moment is probably allowing someone to be banned from any discussion which they disrupt, but those have not historically been well enforced by the admin corps and there is also the very real risk of baiting. On that note, I strongly feel that anyone baiting someone to violate their restrictions should face exactly the same sanction as the person they are baiting.

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

   Yes, it's not universal but it does happen. The way to solve it in my view is to look at the actions of any user independent of whether they are an administrator and put them into four categories (1) they made no edits/actions that require a sanction, (2) they misused administrative tools but did not otherwise make any bad edits worth of sanction, (3) they misused administrative tools and also made sanctionably bad edits, (4) they made bad edits that are worthy of a sanction, but did not misuse administrative tools.
   For editors in category 1 no further action beyond warnings (if required) are necessary. For editors in category (2) then a desysop or administrative topic ban (may not make admin actions related to the Foo topic area) should be considered but editing topic bans and the like are probably not required. Category 3 editors should be subject to sanction as both an editor and as an admin - a desyop alone is not sufficient. Category 4 editors should not be subject to a desysop as a remedy unless the editing was sufficiently bad that it was grossly incompatible with the standards expected of administrators - and even then a desysop alone is not sufficient.
   Only tangentially relevant to the super mario problem, one thing that we nearly tried this year, but was overtaken by events (I forget who it was though), that I'd like to see explored is requiring a binding reconfirmation RFA to determine whether the community does still have trust in the editor as an administrator.

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

   Yes, but only once. If an editor is admonished or warned, but repeats the behaviour, there is no point in doing the same again.

Insider Baseball

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

   It can do, but it depends how seriously the participants treat it and how engaged participants and drafters are with the process. Usually it has some value, although not always as much as it might, but there are occasions when it is just a cesspit and where that is predictable it is occasionally best to skip it. Often though participants, especially semi-involved observers, have ideas about what would and would not work that are useful for arbitrators to understand.

Question from Pldx1

2. Dear candidate. As you probably have noted, an user describing himself as a Grammar Badguy asked the question he asked to the 11 first nominated candidates. In my opinion, the way each candidate answered this question is an important criteria of choice. Since you were not one of the 11, I think it could be fair to give you an occasion to comment. Pldx1 (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

   I'm unclear what I'm being asked here. If you want me to answer Grammar Badguy's question, please ask it yourself, taking responsibility for the question the same way that everybody else asking questions does. If on the other hand you want me to answer a meta question about his asking, you need to be more specific about what that question actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Worm That Turned

2. I had a look through this year's cases and was disappointed to see that your name had not appeared as drafter for any. What would you say you'd brought to the committee over the past year? Have you taken the lead on any processes or procedures?

   I was a drafter for Kww and The Rambling Man, the primary one as it turned out in practice. I was also one of the original drafters for the e-cigs case before real life rudely interrupted and I had to take a back seat for a while - which was very frustrating. Most of what I have have done has been behind the scenes work copyediting and commenting on proposed drafts, ensuring that discussions actually come to an agreement rather than just idle-out unresolved (one of my pet hates). I've also done my fair share (at least) of communicating on behalf of arbcom in various places, cases included. After only one year on the committee I've not yet developed to my full potential and so I'd certainly bring more to a second term than I have so far. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from User:Beyond My Ken

2. Do you believe that SPI is the only legitimate mechanism for determining the nature of suspicious editors? If so, what do you advise long-term editors with a good feel for behavioral patterns to do about questionable editors when there is no clear candidate for who the master might be?

   I do not have enough knowledge of the issues regarding this to offer specific advice.
   However in general terms, any investigation into (possible) links between editors needs to be careful to avoid issues of stalking, harassment, outing and casting aspersions. SPI seems well set-up in this regard, and I'm not aware of anywhere else at the moment that is, but that doesn't mean that no other venue could be.
   Off the top of my head I would have thought that setting up a dummy master for later merging when the real identity is discovered would seem to be a sensible way of doing things. However if it really was that obvious then it would have happened already and this wouldn't be an issue anyone would raise in an arbcom election, so there must be something I'm not aware of and/or overlooking.
   This is a good example of how I react when things I do not know about come up - I'm not afraid of saying "I don't know", but I will try and offer advice from common sense as sometimes an outside perspective can help (hence venues like WP:3O work). If needs be I will then educate myself about the topic - I learned a lot about edit filters for the Kww and The Rambling Man case for example. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

   Some, possibly most, parts of this question would be illegal to ask a candidate for a job interview or volunteer position in the UK (where I'm based) and I don't see that candidates for a volunteer position on Wikipedia should be required to out themselves in this manner.
   On my user page I state that I'm a 35-year-old male who lives in London and that I attended both University of Wales Swansea and University of East London. There is also a category of photographs of me on Commons, and if you are in the UK you can meet regularly meet me at the London, East London and Oxford meetups (my budget doesn't normally stretch to meetups further afield, but if you want to fund me to come to a local meetup, get in touch and we'll talk about practicalities).

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

   Administrators have first hand experience of making blocks and deletions, of evaluating the necessity for these actions and of justifying and explaining them to those who are unhappy about it. This inevitably gives them a different perspective on such matters to someone who has not, and a variety of perspectives is a good thing.
   As an arbitrator you will be involved with situations that require quick, discrete handling - for example the outing of one case participant by another. An administrator can quickly hide (at least rev-del, if not oversight) the offending information and block the perpetrator as soon as they become aware of it, whereas an arbitrator without the tools would be required to contact someone else to take the necessary actions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Thryduulf. For the record, I consider these elections an election situation more than a job application situation (though you're welcome to disagree), and political candidates' demographic markers are generally considered fair game in that context, even in the UK. But again, your declining to answer that question will not be held against you. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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?

   Assuming that the usernames are pseudonymous very likely unique, identical, and are posting about the same stuff from the same point of view, then it is less likley to be outing to note the possible connection in a civil manner in an appropriate context. The real world is not as tidy as the example given here though and there are many other factors to consider, including whether there are any profiles on either account that reveal personal information that isn't disclosed at the other, before determining whether it is outing. Stating that Wikipedia user:Bar = other_site user:Bar requires more evidence than just the same username being used, no matter how unique it is - perhaps surprisingly I've found sites where the username "Thryduulf" was taken by someone who is not me, and I have no connection with the very similarly named user:Thrydwulf here.
   This question is not as hypothetical as it might appear to be, and it is worth stressing again that just vigorously claiming something to be true is not evidence that it actually is.
   The bottom line is that the only time it is definitively not outing is when the user makes the connection themselves, every other time circumstances need to be taken into account. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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?

   Please come back when you have left your agenda at the door. It is not appropriate to seek to relitigate cases here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

   </noninclude>

Question by Müdigkeit

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

   I don't expect that it will be significantly different to this year. I haven't kept a log of how long I spend on arbitration tasks, but I'd estimate that on average it's worked out at around 10-25 hours a week, depending on workload and my availability. I'd love for it not to take that long, but we'll have to see what effect the abolition of BASC makes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from SilkTork

Well done for volunteering to do another stint on the Committee. My questions are about Yngvadottir's desysopping, as a number of people have said they will oppose you purely because you supported that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

2. In the ArbCom case on the incident, you are uncertain if Kirill Lokshin's block of Eric Corbett was "reasonable". Could you say directly if you agree with the block, and if you would have made the block yourself?

   I don't know that I would have blocked for 1 month, and I may not have blocked at all as the comments were not a gross violation of the restriction. If I did block I would have made it explicit that if was not for the first two comments Eric made. However, I do agree that it was reasonable to interpret the rest of Eric's comments as a breach of his restriction and that a one month block was an explicitly permitted response to a breach. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

4. You continue to support the desysopping of Yngvadottir, and the use of the emergency procedures for doing so. Could you explain what concerns you had regarding what Yngvadottir might do while the Committee discussed a motion to desysop her?

   My view is simple - when any administrator reverses an arbitration or arbitration enforcement action out of process there is no alternative to the removal of their administrative access. Either the account has been compromised or they are knowingly and actively placing their own opinions above the encyclopaedia, so the emergency desysop is protective until we and the community can be certain that they will not reverse other administrative, arbitration and arbitration enforcement actions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

6. What do you feel this incident tells us about the condition of Wikipedia?

   That some people find it controversial that administrators taking actions that are explicitly stated will lead to being desysopped actually get desysopped is very worrying. The encyclopaedia is built upon consensus decision making and when adminstrators would rather sacrifice their tools, which they gained only because they were trusted to follow consensus, to make a point instead of seeking consensus suggests that the priorities of some editors need refocussing. It is not sustainable that politics surrounding individual contributors disrupt the functioning of the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

8. What have you personally learned from this incident? Is there anything you wouldn't do again, or would do differently?

   The need is to ensure to the best of our ability as arbitrators that our decisions solve the underlying problems as well as the immediate ones.
   If the situation arises again, I see no justification in treating another administrator differently.Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question by SageRad

2. Hello, Thryduulf. I see your answer to SmallBones above about bullying. I'm concerned about the nature of bullying being dominating, where one or more editors try to gain power over other editors through psychological means. Your answer to SmallBones seems sort of non-committal on saying that bullying is wrong, saying that your concern is to enable the maximum number of users to edit. But my concern with this is, what if there are 10 people who bully others but who get along with each other, and 5 others who get bullied by them? In that case, to maximize productive editors, you might let them keep on bullying the 5, who may then go away and stop editing, and you have 10 bullying editors in control of the article. Is that the outcome you'd want? My proposal is that bullying is a dominating behavior and in itself is wrong, and that its very presence may contribute to a distortion of the articles because of intimidation of some editors. Would you support a volunteer anti-bullying task force of advocates who watch out for and help to shut down bullying using the civility guidelines? SageRad (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

   I would support such a task-force, particularly if they had experience and/or training in dealing with bullying and harassment. There would need to be details agreed before they started acting, e.g. they would need to be careful not to take sides in content disputes, but they should be easy to sort out with community buy-in.
   Although 10 people bullying the 5 are numerically superior, the atmosphere of bullying will put off more than 10 others so the way to maximise editors is not to allow bullying of any sort, regardless of who is bullying who. That does of course though not meant that the 5 people will necessarily get their way on the article as (a) that is a content decision outside of Arbcom's scope, and (b) good or bad behaviour is independent of one's opinions about content (e.g. just because someone bullies to preserve NPOV in an article does not mean NPOV is wrong). I hope this clarifies things for you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

4. It does. Thank you. But would you agree that bullying is never needed in order to keep articles to NPOV if the guidelines are enforced well, as the guidelines mandate NPOV, so bullying to maintain NPOV may seem good in a sense but is also bad because it's using bullying? In other words, if i may ask follow-up question, is there a need for vigilantism or can we get the articles right while working by the guidelines? SageRad (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

   There is never a need for either bullying or vigilantism as it is entirely possible (and preferable) to uphold policies and guidelines without either. If you bully to enforce NPOV (or indeed whatever your justification) you are bullying and should be treated accordingly. My point was that behaviour and views on article content are unrelated. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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?

   This is not a comparison I've hard before now, and while I can see some similarities (e.g. if it is a prison, and editors are inmates, then administrators are the trusted ones, but I disagree that editors are inmates - everyone is free to leave at any time and none of arbitrators, functionaries, 'crats or stewards fit the role of guards) it is a very limited analogy that doesn't scale well. There certainly are groups of editors who support each other in disputes - the infobox disputes (from which I am recused of course) are possibly an example, and some (but not all) of those who comment on both sides every time Eric does something even potentially controversial could be argued to fit the description. However "gang" to me implies a level of organisation and coordination that is not apparent other than in an extremely limited few cases - the Eastern European Mailing List from a few years ago being the only one that immediately comes to mind. The vast majority of disputes involve only a very small number of editors regarding a specific matter and who are uninvolved in any other dispute.
   All dispute resolution should be trying to solve any underlying factors in a dispute rather than just the immediate cause, and part of that is the restriction at arbcom and at AE that only those directly affected by a decision can appeal it. Interaction and topic bans can also be used (and perhaps should be used more often) to separate people from disputes they are not involved with where the input does not aid resolution (for example The Devil's Advocate's restrictions). If you have other suggestions for how to reduce the real or perceived impact of hangers on and enablers then please share them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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?

   No, I believe the processes are intended to discourage adversarial dispute resolution - starting at the very bottom with seeking additional input at 3O or RFCs - and most of the time they achieve this. Dispute resolution should never be about winning or losing, and at ArbCom we try to do the best we can to discourage this thinking - including finds and remedies relating to adversarial conduct where required.

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

   I would strongly oppose any curtailing of the ability to sanction someone coming to a dispute resolution forum with unclean hands. Removing it would enact a strong and bureaucratic first mover advantage and hinder the resolution of disputes where the filing party is at fault.Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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?

   Yes. In some cases this will be because the link is based on non-public information (e.g. checkuser) which means the link cannot be made explicit on wiki, but even when it is not, no editor is permitted to engage in editing in breach of the sockpuppetry policy regardless of whether they are banned. It is also not always necessary to determine who is operating a given sockpuppet if it's use is contrary to policy regardless of the person behind it.
   Obviously it is important to be careful that the account blocked is actually a sockpuppet (or meat puppet), but any editor who disagrees in good faith is entitled to ask for the block to be reconsidered. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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?

    It is worth noting that it is only the 2nd topic space where this remedy has been used by the Arbitration Committee. The restriction is aimed to enable editors who are familiar with Wikipedia's processes and policies to improve the article and discuss improvements to the article, where this is being hindered by large numbers of sockpuppets and/or new users who are not here to aide the creation of a neutral encyclopaedia article. The downside is that this will discourage the few new users who actually do want to improve the article, but these editors are much fewer in number than those without this intent and they are welcome to contribute after gaining experience in a less controversial venue. The chances are they will have a better experience as a new editor in less contentious area anyway - Wikipedia has a learning curve and every new editor will make mistakes, when these are made somewhere that experienced editors are not spending all their time fire-fighting they can be better guided as they learn.
    A technical enforcement of restrictions of this nature would be preferable to manual enforcement, but my understanding is that this is not possible at the moment.
    Regarding other improvements, I think it is best to wait until the restrictions have been applied in the wild for long enough to get reliable indications of what is and is not working and whether they are or are not succeeding in their aim. I recommended that they be reviewed after a few months (6-9 iirc) of operation for exactly this reason, and think speculating on anything before then would be unhelpful, particularly as I have not had chance to follow the day-to-day impact. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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?

    If there is a problem that prior dispute resolution has failed to resolve, then a request for arbitration should be filed giving evidence of the problem and that AN/I and AE have failed to resolve it. I do not predict the outcome of hypothetical arbitration cases. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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?

    I have suggested in several places and at various times that cases should be able to be heard by a subset of arbitrators, although I favour inactivity rather than recusal as an arbitrator recused from a case must also recuse from an appeal, amendment or clarification of it. Proposals for suggestions of this nature have however failed to reach consensus (for or against) both as community proposals and as internal discussion. If I am re-elected I will raise this again to see if there is consensus among the new committee - but obviously I am unable to promise consensus will be achieved.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from User:Blackmane

2. This is a hypothetical that is somewhat based on real threads that have occurred on WP:AN and WP:ANI in the past. An editor who self identifies as having a mental disability or disorder has been indefinitely blocked for a variety of violations, take your pick of edit warring, NPA, disruption, CIR, POINT, Godwin's etc, and is now seeking to return to editing. Quite a few members of the community have sought to advise this editor on why they were blocked but struggle to get the editor to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how Wikipedia works with those who suffer from such disorders. This is an open ended, and deliberately vague, question that will no doubt be difficult to answer, but is more for me, and presumably other editors, to get a grasp of your thoughts. Blackmane (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

   It is extremely difficult to generalise about these situations as each one is different - not least because "mental illness" is an incredibly broad term and even for people with the same condition, their own experience of it is individual and there can therefore be no one right answer. The goal should be to do the most good for the project while dealing with each individual as sensitively as possible, but ultimately someone needs to understand why they were blocked if they are not going to just get reblocked down the road and ultimately it doesn't really matter whether they don't understand because they cannot or because they will not (in many cases it is not possible to know).
   There are editors who have mental health issues that mean they can and do interact with the project the same as someone who doesn't have those issues some or even most of the time, but at other times are closer to incoherent than anything else - we should do what we can to allow these people to edit when they are able while protecting the project from them (and them from the project) when they aren't. This is not easy to do of course!
   I don't have much first hand knowledge of how Wikipedia actually deals with these people - I don't immediately recall being involved at AN/I or AN in an incident involving someone who has publicly disclosed having a mental illness for example, and I have no relevant qualifications or advance subject knowledge in the real world so I'm not the best placed to offer detailed suggestions.
   If someone has not disclosed they have a mental illness publicly, then there is even less that can be done. Arbcom can deal with situations privately where it has been disclosed to them (and has done so) if that is in the interests of the project and the person. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from User:Wikimandia

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?

   While there was significant support for a topic ban at ANI, there was not consensus for one and it would have been inappropriate for the committee to disregard the outcome of the community discussion. The arbitration case was closed after Neelix resigned the admin bit because everything else could be, and was being, dealt with by community processes. If Neelix had not been an administrator then almost certainly the case would not have been accepted in the first place as there was not evidence of prior dispute resolution failing to resolve the problem, nor would it have been accepted if there was a community desysopping process that could handle the issue of his admin status. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)