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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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! 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I've certainly disagreed with the outcomes of some cases; I don't think any arbitrator can make it through two years on the Arbitration Committee and have every case turn out to match their votes exactly. Most of the outcomes I've disagreed with are apparent from my votes, but to save people having to dig through all the cases, the cases where the outcome notably did not follow my votes were Interactions at GGTF, GamerGate, and Lightbreather.

   I was a drafter on the Interactions at the GGTF case, and I helped to draft the GamerGate case as well, so I take a lot of responsibility for them. I think the issues with all three of these cases were fairly similar: the problems started with difficult request and evidence sections, were exacerbated by poor drafting, and resulted in a negative outcome. I've learned from them that these problems need to be caught and dealt with from the beginning, or else they snowball into really bad decisions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i read (part of) the three cases now and i am not able to figure out what you mean by your statement? if you take one case as an example, what would you have done different, and how the outcome would have been different? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?

   Given that you are under a restriction that prohibits you from adding infoboxes to articles that you did not create, I would enforce that restriction. I would not close the discussion at the point—more discussion is needed to reach a clearer consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am under no restriction for talk page suggestions and believe the discussion is independent from who suggested it. Care to consider Rigoletto?

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."

   Can you clarify what you mean by "arbitration supervision"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link under "offered some thoughts", - less force, more talk, and respect for the victim (find better word).

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?

   Certainly. This exact thing happened in the October 2014 Landmark Worldwide case—no sanctions were imposed. I think that's fine, though it is generally unlikely that an issue severe enough to require an arbitration case be opened will result in no sanctions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?

   I'd need a lot more context for that statement before I could make a judgment on that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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? 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?

   If we know that a sole subject of an arbitration case will be absent for a period of time, I think it's reasonable to postpone the case until they return. When there are multiple parties to a case, this does not make as much sense, and I would probably suggest we continue the case as best we can without the absent party. As for evidence lengths, 1000 words is generally sufficient, but when an editor genuinely needs more space, we routinely allow longer statements. I don't see a reason to increase the default. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for running for another term of 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!

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?

   I agree that AUSC should be disbanded, but we cannot foist this responsibility on the functionaries without agreement from them and the rest of the community. I do think that this should be handled as soon as possible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I've already done something by voting on the current motions. I think Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: BASC disbanded is the proper course of action. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   If someone is very disruptive in a specific topic area, but participates successfully elsewhere, that's a good sign that a topic ban might be effective. If someone is disruptive in many or all of their interactions, there is often not a topic ban that would suffice. If someone has already been topic banned but is continuing to disrupt elsewhere, that's a good sign that a site ban should be considered. And of course, there are some cases where a site ban is necessary and a topic ban should not be considered: for example, egregious violations of the WP:HARASSMENT policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 am not of the opinion that we need new and creative ways to solve this problem. The "new and creative" solutions we've seen in the past are attempts to give another chance to people who do not care to abide by the community's civility policies. If that is the case, they should be shown the door. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I think it does. I'm not sure that there's much more that can be done about it, though, than asking ourselves if we are imposing the same sanctions that we would be if the editor was not an administrator/etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   They can be useful in future cases because they put poor behavior on record. I doubt they do much to change anyone's behavior, but if an editor is only being admonished or warned, that's less of a concern. I don't see much point in admonishing or warning in addition to more severe sanctions. I also would rather standardize it to one of the two options; does anyone actually know what the difference is? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Yes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?)

   Arbitration is probably the best example for me; I don't do anything off-wiki that could really be considered dispute resolution. I think we've had a couple of cases recently that have been successful in resolving disputes: Kww and The Rambling Man comes to mind. I have not drafted a case recently, so I can't really point to one of those, though I'm of course hoping the case that I'm currently drafting will produce a helpful outcome. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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) 17:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   As I think I've said elsewhere, I feel like I really did not hit my stride for at least a year after joining the Arbitration Committee. I was too concerned about trying to please everyone that I mostly kept quiet and didn't offer my opinions as often or as strongly as I should have. I feel like I've gotten a lot better about speaking up when I have something to say, and arguing when I need to. One of the worst kinds of arbitrator is someone who does not closely examine evidence and proposed decisions, but rather blindly votes along with the rest of the Committee. I am not one of those people.

   I also offer a different point of view on the committee because I am a woman. I've been in the vast gender minority on the Committee for the past two years, and expect that will continue to be the case if I am elected again, though I am excited to see two very capable women among the other candidates and I very much hope they are both elected. I think it's important to have a diverse pool of arbitrators with a diverse range of lived experiences.

   Especially with so many vacant seats, the Arbitration Committee will benefit from my past experience with a lot of the procedural stuff. I can say from experience that it takes a lot of time to figure out how to actually do things procedurally correctly—I still get things wrong even now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Thank you for your thoughtful answer. But I'd like to follow up. Can you please be a little more specific about how you expect to actually make improvements happen? Can you, for example, do something to help the situation along when another Arb fails to read evidence, or can you help bring about some other kind of improvement? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   If I believe an arbitrator has failed to read evidence (or perhaps read it but missed a key part), I generally just ask them to clarify their position. My view is that most intercommittee issues can be resolved via discussion.

   In terms of what I can do to improve the committee, I don't have any grand plans for reform like some of the other candidates (though I do think that some of the suggestions are good—in particular, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's suggestion of opening cases with a statement of purpose). Instead, I intend to continue and improve the work I have been doing (and should have done more of) on the Committee: trying to help move things along in a timely matter, helping keep track of issues that we need to address so that they do not slip through the cracks, and attempting to achieve consensus among the Committee. I think if we had succeeded at these three things, this past year's ArbCom would have enjoyed much more success. Plus I might as well let out my neurotic to-do-list-making urges on something productive... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. You say you would like to make Wikipedia "a welcoming and safe place for non-men to contribute". This is a question about the last few cases involving Eric Corbett and about the recently concluded Neelix case. How does preventing Eric Corbett from voicing his politically unfavourable ideas on the Gender Gap help achieve this goal, and why is it a greater priority than dealing with Neelix's very strange expression of his odd sexuality. I'm thinking about "girlcrazily" redirects and yellow-breasted disambiguations. This is not meant to be a leading question. I genuinely think that political speech, even uncomfortable political speech is worthy of protection, and that weird hangups about sex are off-putting to people in general. I would like to understand where you are coming from because now I cannot. THanks!

   To achieve that goal, Wikipedia needs to cultivate an environment in which editors treat each other with respect, even when they disagree. If they cannot participate civilly when discussing a topic or group of people, they should not be allowed to continue doing so. I disagree with Eric Corbett's opinions on the gender gap, obviously, but it is not the opinions themselves that have caused his past sanctions.

   I disagree with the assertion that the Arbitration Committee is giving the Eric Corbett case higher priority. That issue has been festering for years, and repeated attempts to improve it have been wildly unsuccessful. The Arbitration Committee involved itself in the Neelix issue because there is not currently a community system for desysopping, but because there was no indication that the community would be unable to impose other sanctions, I argued to leave it in their hands. Suddenly taking over that issue when we are not needed would be an overreach. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I'm not really sure what you're asking. What do you mean by "harm free speech"? And are you referring to civility and speech on-wiki, or truly generally? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to be an abstract, open-ended question. You can interpret it any way you wish, and you can comment on either or both of the truly general case and the implications for on-wiki behavior. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll answer this commenting on the implications for on-wiki behavior, since that's sort of the context for this question. The idea of "free speech" on Wikipedia is flawed. Though some people like to shout about their right to free speech onwiki, speech is not protected on Wikipedia by the First Amendment. The Wikimedia Foundation is not the government, and as they host the website, it is in the end up to them what speech they allow or disallow. They have imposed some fairly broad rules on what people can and cannot say, and have left the rest up to the various communities. Enforcing our own rules about civility is not impinging on someone's free speech, it is asking them to please take their free speech elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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?

   There isn't a black-and-white line between incivility and harassment, and I'm sure there are issues where one person's definition wouldn't match another's. A few thoughts on my interpretation: Harassment is targeted, incivility generally is not. If you're having a bad day, someone reverts an edit that you worked hard on, and you snap at them, chances are you're being incivil. On the other hand, if you've got a grudge against someone and you continually find places where they've contributed to hound and attack them, you're harassing them. I also consider the severity. If you call someone an idiot, you're probably being incivil. If you call them slurs, or you threaten them, it's harassment. Harassment is intended to deliberately make someone feel discouraged or scared; incivility tends to be a knee-jerk reaction to something else.

   I think that incivility that doesn't rise to the level of harassment still negatively affects our ability to retain editors. This has been studied in other environments (Workplace incivility#Surveys on occurrence and effects) and I would guess that the effects would be similar here. I know that personally, if someone is rude to me, I'm less likely to want to keep participating somewhere where I'm likely to run into them. This affects all editors fairly evenly, but I think some incivility affects some editors more than others. For example, microaggressions are more likely to be discouraging and off-putting to members of the group they're referring to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. 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?

   I'm not quite sure where I stand on this, to be honest. The GamerGate case was the only time during my tenure on the Committee where we released such a statement, though it was also the only case that received that much media attention. I do think that the statement helped with some of the misinformation that was circulating, but it took a long time to write. Furthermore, once the incorrect articles are published, there's only so much you can do. I think it's worth considering if we get a case as convoluted and misrepresented in the media as the GamerGate one (god forbid), but I certainly don't want it to become the norm. I think a more personal statement to individual reporters would be a bit easier—it would encourage a dialogue more than a stiff statement. We did that to an extent with the GamerGate coverage and it seemed to gain more traction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6. 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 refuse to write a primer for the press on the Arbitration enforcement 2 case on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. I am recused, and it would be wildly inappropriate for me to be the spokesperson for the Committee on this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8. 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 do not feel this fear is warranted. If the conduct of volunteers is poor enough that professionals cannot coexist with us, then we need to fix our conduct. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

===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) 10:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

   No more useful (see below). Pldx1 (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Hi, thanks for running again. There are many sensitive topics on which sanctions are applied. Have you ever resolved any dispute on topics related to Israel-Palestine or India-Pakistan? In your last term have you ever involved in issues related to topics of these conflicts? Thank you.

   The Arbitration Committee is currently hearing the Palestine–Israel articles 3 case, but this fell during a period of approximately a month where I was impossibly busy, so I am inactive on it and the few other cases that were opened during that time. I don't think we've handled much else in that conflict area, though I apologize if I've missed anything—WP:ARCA is incredibly difficult to search. I have not been involved in disputes on these subjects outside of my role as an arbitrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   No. If there's a clear WP:DUCK link between accounts, the editors can block them themselves (if they have the admin tools) or request they be blocked. If the connection is less clear but there's a good guess as to who might be operating the account, they can contact an individual checkuser or file an SPI. If the account seems to be a sock but does not have any clear connection to another account, I'm generally of the mind to let them be. Usually sockish behavior that does not point to any particular master manifests itself as disruption, which can be handled normally outside of the SPI process. If it does not, then I generally think the account should be allowed to continue editing. If at some point a potential master becomes apparent, it can be dealt with via SPI or checkuser. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 am a queer, white, cisgender woman. I live in Boston, Massachusetts currently, and I also grew up in the Northeast US. I suffer from a fairly nasty anxiety disorder. I think I'd generally be considered to belong to the upper middle class. I know some have balked at this question as being too invasive elsewhere, but I do take your intentions to be sincere. Furthermore, these are all answers I've disclosed elsewhere; I have in the past found that disclosing as much information about myself as I'm comfortable with has actually been my best strategy. Most people who've interacted with me (or at least seen my userpage) know that I'm a white woman; a lot of people know I'm a Bostonian. The others I've disclosed elsewhere in the past, though my queerness and my anxiety disorder don't tend to come up terribly often onwiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I'm generally in favor of more diversity on the Arbitration Committee, and non-administrator members could offer a different viewpoint. However, I am concerned if we elect non-administrator members and don't also give them the tools, at least for the duration of their term. We handle incidents that require access to the block tools, revision-delete, oversight, and checkuser pretty much daily, and if the non-administrator candidates are not given access to these tools, it will be up to the administrator and oversighter arbitrators to copy revision-deleted or oversighted edits to the arbwiki or somewhere in order to allow them to arbitrate properly. If the community decides that non-administrator arbitrators can be elected, but cannot be trusted with revision-deleted or oversighted edits or checkuser data, then it's completely unworkable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, GorillaWarfare. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Generally speaking, I would not consider noting that there is a "Bar" on Reddit and a "Bar" on Wikipedia to be outing. That said, if the Wikipedian denies it, there's not a whole lot that can be done. I understand that this odd component of the OUTING policy is used as a loophole—people are free to post on other sites while fairly clearly linking themselves to Wikipedia, but can deny it from Wikipedia's end. On the other hand, I see why it must be that way: we cannot definitively prove that a user on Reddit is the same as a user on Wikipedia, and there is potential for damage if we do so incorrectly... For example, people trying to link me and the Reddit user gorillawarfare_ might think I like the Dallas Cowboys! GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I do think that the finding is appropriate. However, I do not think sanctioning the user for this alone would be appropriate, and I think harassment of this kind and magnitude should be considered when imposing sanctions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I currently spend about an hour a day reading through and answering emails, and checking up on Wikipedia to see what's going on. If there is a case request, a motion, or a proposed decision that needs to be considered, this increases. When drafting a case, this increases fairly substantially—even though I kept up with much of the evidence as it was submitted while drafting my current case, it still took me about eight hours to write from start to finish. I would anticipate spending a similar amount of time on Arbitration matters in my next term, though with BASC disbanded, I'm hoping the email workload will diminish somewhat. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. They also were not all brought up at ANI, so there could have been no community consensus as you claimed above. 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. So why did you support dropping the case as soon as he resigned?

   I did not believe that the Neelix issue should have been accepted as a full case. Had things gone my way, the Arbitration Committee would have decided on the desysop by motion, and left further sanctions to be raised at ANI. Deciding to hear a full case ended with the result you describe, which I agree was suboptimal. I voted for the case to be closed because I thought it would have been an overreach for the Arbitration Committee to hear that case when there was no indication that the components of it (besides the desysop) could not be adequately handled by the community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. What would you consider your best work on ArbCom to be and why? Are there any particular cases you are not so proud of, and what would you have done differently?

   I think my best work has been largely behind the scenes. I am very quick to answer emails that require immediate attention, and for a while was the sole maintainer of a sort of ArbCom to-do list. (I have not maintained this list for a while largely because it was a lot of work for a list that I felt was not being used, although I would like to continue maintaining it now that we have divested of BASC, as that was the majority of its contents).

   There are a number of things I would have done differently. I've detailed the cases that I would have handled differently above in Yash!'s question. I also feel that I have developed a better sense of when it is necessary to recuse. I would not have been so quick to recuse on the GamerGate case (when I realized it was not necessary, it resulted in no small amount of ill will against me), and I would have recused on an appeal where I should have realized I was liable to be viewed as involved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. I read on User:Tryptofish/ACE2015 that you were a victim of harassment and have "posted a harrowing account" about it. Could you please provide a link to that account?

   User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 196#The Atlantic - How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women (ctrl-F "There have been numerous"}. Alternatively, the diff is [1]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you maintain a list, written down or otherwise, of editors, whether administrators or otherwise, that you would unhesitatingly vote to take action (that is, ban, block, desysop) against were they to be a party to a case before the committee? What policies would be implicated in an arbitrator maintaining such a list? If a fellow arbitrator maintained such a list, and they told you about it, how would you advise them?

   I do not maintain such a list. This kind of grudge-holding would be very inappropriate for an arbitrator. If it was discovered that another arbitrator had such a list, I would expect them to recuse on matters relating to those users, and I would seriously question their judgment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GorillaWarfare. Thank you for running.

2. What is your take on bullying that happens on Wikipedia? What would you think of stronger guidelines about bullying behaviors, and an anti-bullying task force made up of volunteers as a way to curb long-term problematic bullying behaviors?

   Bullying and harassment on Wikipedia is a major issue, as well as the lower-level incivility that has somehow become accepted as a part of the culture. I do think the policies and guidelines should be strengthened. I'm not sure what an anti-bullying task force would accomplish, though I would certainly listen to a longer proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I disagree with this comparison. I think the majority of the enwiki community is quite kind and collaborative. There are occasions in which it is clear that groups of editors are working together to enable or excuse disruptive behavior, but this comparison implies that that is the norm and not the exception. Unfortunately I think this kind of behavior can be rewarded at ANI, AE, and ArbCom, but I also think these processes often see through it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I think so, yes. It is often to a party's advantage to bait other parties into poor behavior. I think it's important to separate parties when necessary, and sanction this kind of behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

   WP:BOOMERANG isn't a policy, it's an essay. I find that it describes common practice, rather than instructs. And I think this practice is appropriate—dispute resolution reports are often made in bad faith, and I don't think it's inappropriate to discourage this behavior with sanctions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   If the accounts are genuinely WP:DUCK socks, this is appropriate, though they should probably be linked to the banned accounts. If it is being used as a way to keep good-faith new editors out of contentious spaces, then it is unjustified. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

    I'm of two minds on the issue. I'd rather this not become a common solution, because it prohibits new editors who could be very productive. That said, I've also seen instances where it's been very necessary (for example, in the GamerGate topic area). A technical implementation seems like it would be helpful since it wouldn't require editors to manually check eligibility and revert. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

    This sounds like a conduct issue that has not been solved by repeated attempts at dispute resolution, so it seems it would be appropriate to bring to ArbCom. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?

    No, I don't think this is a great idea. We've recently had about this number of inactive or recused editors on a lot of our cases, and as you can see, we've been working through them at a snail's pace. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. An innocuous question from one set on voting for you, but would you mind sharing a little bit about the software you've contributed to the development of? --DawnDusk (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I work on a fair number of my own projects, which are all on my Github. I've also done a co-op at a company called NxStage, where I worked primarily on web connectivity for one of their systems, and two co-ops at HubSpot, where I worked as a front-end developer on two different teams. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. You say you have fought and are going to fight against the gender gap in Wikipedia. How are you planning to fight against it?SoSivr (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   A while back I identified what I feel are the three main issues that contribute to gendered harassment on Wikipedia. I think I can help to work on the first issue, on-wiki harassment, by supporting strong sanctions against harassers, and by working to understand what are often complex cases involving mitigating factors. I also think we can work to develop a strategy when it comes to off-wiki harassment. We've handled that issue very inconsistently in the past.

   Beyond the issues of harassment, I will also continue to work on the gender gap in other ways, though not as a part of my role as an arbitrator. I've written a number of articles on important women to try to improve our coverage (Alma Dolens, Mariam Behruzi, Tuba Azmudeh, Cai Chang, Hidiya Hanim Barakat, and Nelle Morton), and occasionally team up with Keilana to work on women-related articles (Vaginal evisceration, Mandated reporter). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   As a community, we should be sensitive to those who have health issues that affect their editing. However, if a person is continually disrupting the encyclopedia and the community, there is only so much leeway we can allow. In the end, Wikipedia is not therapy, and continued disruption needs to be prevented. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. You may have won my sympathies for voting due to your statement "you have not been controversial", So I hope you'll be continuing arbitration politely and kindess , Now I want to ask What are your key agendas for help users in arbitration and kindly do share your intentions how you can perfoms best and unique than other user, What are your expertise in Software development, do you have skills in Android Mobile Apps Development Best Wishes, Good luck--Jogi 007 (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

   I primarily intend to continue doing what I've tried to do over the past two years: provide solutions to difficult situations, and impose sanctions fairly and only when necessary. An editor asked me about my work as a software developer above. I have not done any Android development. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Not a particularly standard question, but I simply had to ask: does your name have anything to do with the Navy Seal copypasta? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Nothing whatsoever. If your link is accurate in its claim that "The earliest archived posting was submitted on November 11th, 2010", my username predates that by about three years. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Recently a situation came up where the gender of an editor, which had not been disclosed by the editor anywhere on-wiki, was posted on several pages. The gender of the editor given the nature of their background is a potentially quite sensitive piece of information, with potential real-life implications. With fairly extensive discussion and multiple requests to oversight the information, the decision was made not to oversight the information with the stated reason being that gender does not explicitly fall under any of the English Wikipedia's oversight criteria. In a similar situation, would you support either interpreting the oversight criteria more broadly in general, IAR oversighting a situation like this, rewriting the oversight criteria to be more inclusive, or would you choose to not oversight the information in question? (As background, according to the EFF, the triumvirate of date of birth, zip code, and gender are sufficient to uniquely identify 87% of American citizens.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   This is an interesting question. I wish I could take a strong stance on this one way or another, but my thoughts are fairly conflicted on it, so I'll just try to explain them instead.

   I very much sympathize with someone not wanting their gender disclosed on-wiki. It's definitely a way to avoid gender-based harassment, and there can certainly be more serious reasons to hide one's gender than that.

   On the other hand, people make gender assumptions on-wiki all the time. People are almost always assumed to be male unless there's some indication otherwise. This leads to a bit of a conundrum: oversighting all gender assumptions is unrealistic, oversighting only the assumptions where people are assumed not to be male seems like a bizarre practice (and is still unrealistic), and oversighting only some of assumptions (presumably on request) brings the risk of lending them legitimacy.

   That said, your statistic about birth date, age, and gender is interesting. As with most oversight requests, I generally favor considering them on a case-by-case basis, and if the disclosure of an editor's gender is the tipping point from unidentifiable to identifiable, then I would support an oversight request. If memory serves on this particular instance, however, the other two personal details had not been disclosed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. (If this question is out of line or not supposed to be answered, please ignore it.)

   Approximately what percent of issues reaching arbitration are currently concerned with gender-related issues? Approximately what percent are political in some non-gender-related way? Your answers may help me decide on the level of importance to assign to various types of qualifications here. Thank you.

   I'll answer this considering just the issues we've handled during my term. We have 3 cases open, and we've closed 15 cases in 2015, and 11 in 2014. Of those 29 cases, I would say that 6 (Arbitration enforcement 2, Neelix, Arbitration enforcement, Lightbreather, GamerGate, and Interactions at GGTF) were gender-related. In addition to the gender-related ones, I'd say another 13 are "political in some non-gender-related way" (Genetically modified organisms, Catflap08 and Hijiri88, Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Palestine-Israel articles 3, American politics 2, Sockpuppet investigation block, OccultZone and others, Collect and others, Christianity and Sexuality, Landmark Worldwide, American politics, Gun control, and Austrian economics). If you consider blocks that we handle by email, I would say very few of them are gender-related. More are "political" in nature, considering that they're often users editing disruptively in topic areas that could be considered political. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dratman (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]