Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kevin Gorman/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Questions from Antony–22

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

   I don't think a categorical statement can be made here, and would encourage everyone to read Sumana's keynote from WikiConf USA 2014 that goes over a lot of related issues. It's not a binary issue; an environment where civility is not enforced (or where there is no civility enforcement mechanism exists) results in a space that drives a lot of people away who would otherwise be valuable contributors. This is especially important at a time when our collaborations with institutions are increasing. At the same time, an environment where civility is enforced to an absurdly strict degree drives away another category of valuable contributors. I think that "Civility vs free speech" is a false dichotomy, and that the debate we've often framed that way is more like "Liberty vs hospitality" (as Sumana put it,) or "The free speech and participation of some vs the free speech and participation of others." I don't think that historically we've struck a very good balance regarding civility enforcement, and think we need to re-examine it, with a particular eye towards the fact that we're here to build an encyclopedia encompassing the sum of all human knowledge - or at least as close to it as we can reasonably get - and make sure that whatever method of enforcing civility we tend towards ends up attracting more contributors that add value to the encyclopedia rather than fewer. The balance we arrive at may mean that some existing Wikimedians are driven away, but if we do find a proper balance, will attract new contributors that pose more value to the encyclopedia than any Wikimedians who we end up losing. (By losing Wikimedians I also generally don't mean losing them by booting them out, just losing them by shifting community values in a way less accepting of gross incivility than it has been in the past creating an environment they may find less desirable to participate in themselves - I don't imagine doing anything like arbcom banning people over civility issues ever, if at all.

That talk is actually what inspired me to ask this very question! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha, that's a bit funny. Sumana, though sadly no longer with the Foundation, worked for the WMF both times I was there, and we had quite a few conversations in person about issues of civility and harrassment. She's one of the Foundation (now ex) people I have the most respect for, especially with regards to her ability to pick up subtle nuance where others don't. Using the framework she put foward in her keynote, I certainly thing the pendulum has swung too far one way currently - but I'm also not the civility police as I'm occasionally accused of being. (I certainly have a lot of respect for Sue, Zack Exley, and a number of other WMFers past and present besides Sumana. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC))

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?

   Incivility doesn't require a pattern of events; harassment does. Neither one is a good thing, but harrassment is a worse thing both in terms of contributor retention and in terms of "Other Wikipedians are human, and treating other humans like that just isn't a cool thing." Incivility poses both a significant problem in retaining existing editors, and an even greater one in attracting new editors. It's quite easy to imagine a new editor whose contributions could be invaluable - but will never be made - taking two looks at some of our more higher profile forums and saying "Screw that, I have a day job, I don't feel a need to volunteer time in an atmosphere like this." I think the pendulum of civility, like that of harrassment, has swung too far in one direction and needs to rebalanced - although I would like to note that "rebalanced" definitely doesn't equate to "swinging way too far in the opposite direction and banning everyone who says anything remotely uncivil."

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've done an awful lot of press outreach related to Wikimedia related to many issues, and I can tell you that releasing a statement, no matter how well written, is not at all guaranteed to reduce the factual accuracies in reporting about the incident - no matter how well the statement is written. I can imagine situations where it's appropriate for Arbcom to release a statement like this en banc - but I certainly don't envision them happening very commonly. (To give you an idea of the rarity I imagine this being a good idea - I'd put it on par with the rarity with which blacking out ENWP as a form of protest is appropriate.) Generally speaking, I'd much rather individual Wikipedians reach out to outlets to correct factual accuracies as they appear (and to be clear, if I was elected and was subsequently approached by a reporter asking for a comment about something, there's a good chance I'd give it - but I'd make it absolutely clear that it was in my capacity as an individual Wikipedian, rather than on behalf of arbcom.)

6. This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press, of no more than a few paragraphs, on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. Do not cover or express an opinion on the proposed or actual decision, but concentrate on how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.

   To be honest, I feel pretty strongly that it would be a bad idea for Arbcom to attempt to brief the press about this case. Few arbcom decisions are picked up in the media, and for an even smaller subset of those would it be appropriate for arbcom to write a press briefing. This is unlikely to be a case noticed by the press in detail (unless arbcom explicitly draws press attention to it,) and unless a situation arises that I don't forsee arising, I don't think it would be appropriate for arbcom to write a press briefing on AE2.

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?

   Yes, I absolutely believe it's a valid concern - not only with regards to the participation of people from academic and cultural institutions, but the increased paid staff base at many overseas chapters, and the increased total staff count and hierachalization of the Foundation. One of the more disappointing comments I ever heard from a grant applicant (I am involved as a volunteer in reviewing potential grants on meta) from a chapter can be accurately summed up as "We need money to pay people to do X, because ever since people realized they could get paid to do X, we stopped getting volunteers to do it." For clarification of my own role in the trend in the past: bluntly, I've never been paid half as much as I expect most people thought, and even while working fulltime as WiR at UCB, I was taking side contracts to meet my living expenses. I wish I had a better answer than I do to ensure that the increasing number of people who are making a living related to Wikimedia doesn't take the wind out of the sails of volunteers, past, present, and future. Wiki-PR certainly didn't increase anyone's motivation to edit related articles, and even people who follow the brightline rule (or the extensive flowchart CREWE made, etc) tend to have a neutral or negative effect on the motivation of many who interact with them. I am definitely less concerned with academic and cultural institutions (Dominic may be a full time employee - but the National Archives' contributions wouldn't be possible if he wasn't,) than I am with the contributions of for-profits and those of employees of a government paid to slant Wikipedia's content one way or another. (I also know that WMF grantmaking is aware of my concerns regarding chapter staff.) I wish I could throw up a better answer, but for now the best I can really do is to say that I'm aware of the concern, agree that it's a concern, have put quite a bit of thought in to it, and am more than happy to hear suggestions or ideas from others about it (although I'd include 'potential volunteer contributor base' as a major concern in addition to our existing volunteer contributor base.)

Questions from Collect

2. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   Yes. I think it would be a significant error to always assume sanctions are necessary. Neelix recent had a case opened against him 10-0-0 which was closed as soon as he resigned his bit under a cloud - and I think that was the correct close to the case. There was a case earlier this year (which in full disclosure I was a party to, primarily from memory because I named someone else party to the case,) where the only actual 'sanctions' pretty much consisted of minorly trouting BK and GW and further instructing the arbs that drafted the decision to amend a couple arb policy pages to bring them in line with some clarifications contained in the decision. I can picture other scenarios - such as a case where, despite the fact that it was appropriately accepted in the first place, the involved parties made up during the proceedings and there was no of a nature severe enough to require anything beyond that and perhaps a few trouts of various sizes. I'm sure I could think of other scenarios, but don't want to get way too far in to tldr territory. Where sanctions can be avoided, I'd prefer to avoid them - partly because we're here to build an encyclopedia, not scold either other - and many arbcom sanctions fall close to that. I have mixed feelings about suspending a case just because someone declares their departure (temporary or permanent) from Wikipedia, but (and cases where suspension like that have been considered have normally involved the conduct of just one party) I'd like to at least see a pretty rapid on-wiki wrapup of most such cases followed by in camera examination of the issues involved by arbcom and either a sketched out idea of appropriate remedies when the party returns (and if they returned the sketch would serve as an idea on how to hold any on-wiki proceedings, depending on the exact behavior involved, including the person's desire to participate in proceedings, the time elapsed, and the nature of the events that led to the proceedings, among other things. I would see no reason to resurrect a two year old case that involved no dastardly behavior, and even in a case just three months old if the parties were amenable and we thought it would serve the job as effectively as a full case I'd rather effectively see a "consent decree" - a motion agreed to by the directly concerned parties and arbcom, setting out any remedies like tbans/ibans/other restrictions.) In more severe cases where the primary figure left, I would generally prefer an in camera investigation and vote on remedies, followed by making them public (at least in part) and enacting them. Even in the more severe cases where arbcom found, say, a desysopping and a handful of tbans or ibans warranted, I think probably only the desysopping need to be announced unless the person returned (and that's just because of the one-two punch that not all admin tools leave logs, and a malicious admin account that did return could do quite a bit of damage of they put their mind to it.) It's worth remembering that people whose behavior is examined by arbcom - even whose bad, or abhorrent, and that lengthy public investigations in to them after they've left - are still people, and such investigations are likely to be hurtful (and may in some cases draw the editor back when it's not productive for themselves or ENWP.

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?

   By the technical letter of WP:INVOLVED, potentially depending on the context the original comment was made in, but from any practical point of view, no. We have enough administrators that if administrative action is needed, another administrator could and should take it instead of whoever made the initial comment.

2. Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?

   Collect, would you mind splitting this in to two questions? I see the first half as quite different than the second. I'll answer in more detail at a later point, but I do think especially where there's reason to believe that such 'substantial reasons for absence' are legitimate that we should accomodate them where possible, as long as it doesn't generate further significant drama or harm to the community. To use an example regarding myself - I was hospitalized for a couple weeks in January, a dozen administrators could've confirmed it offhand, and it would've have been easy for arbcom as a whole to confirm it. If I had somehow been up at arbcom on a behavioral case at that time, it would've been a bit unfair to me (or anyone else in such a situation) to be expected to either figure out a way to respond or defend themselves in such a situation... but for almost all things I could've been before arbcom before, being in an ICU 1.5 with very limited internet ability would've also pretty much stopped my ability to do whatever dastardly thing I was accused of doing.

Question from Altamel

2. What are your standards for deciding when to recuse from a case? Are there any topic areas or disputes where you feel your recusal is warranted?

   I will recuse from any case where I believe my current or former involveent in a subject (and I mean this much more loosely than the letter of WP:INVOLVED) brings in to serious question my ability to execute the role I was elected to fulfull. I would heavily consider recusal requests from colleagues, parties to the case, and the general community as long as I felt the requests to recuse were rooted in significant issues, and not just because someone didn't expect to like the way I'd vote or draft a case. I have been around and active enough that it would take a while for me to list every editor who I'd recuse from. I will say that I'll recuse in cases where Eric Corbett is a primary figure, although I have no intention of recusing in civility cases in general, and would not recusing or only partially recusing in a case involving Eric if either Eric's actions were absolutely black and white (similar to the exception built in to WP:INVOLVED) if I viewed the case as a particularly important one regarding civility in general. I'd also not recuse (unless Eric asked me to) in a case where Eric was the subject of strongly inappropriate behavior coming from other editors. I'll categorically recuse from any case involving the University of California system barring extremely unusual situations, because I've been a student and contractor for the system, and have also strongly criticized their handling of issues involving sexual violence on their campuses (to the point that I may be deposed in related cases, and may take them to court myself independently to force compliance with the California Public Records Act. I'd recuse from cases involving members of the Men's rights movement as such except in very unusual circumstances, but not necessarily from other movements that they are frequently associated with, like GamerGate, and depending on the circumstances, may not always recuse from situations involving figures or organizations that are associated in the public mind with the MRM. In general, it's likely that I'd recuse pretty much whenever requested by another arb - let alone multiple arbs - and due to the deep respect I hold for her, would also recuse from any case that User:Keilana asked me to (and I would coincidentally also recuse from cases where her behavior was a main issue.) This isn't meant to be a be-all ends-all, just a few examples to give you an idea.

Question from Rcsprinter123

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

   Ideally, disputes on Wikipedia are resolved via consensus. Unfortunately, this isn't always possible, and some disputes present a significant enough disruption to the project that the existence of a body empowered to break the back of the dispute - to cut the Gordian knot - is necessary. I have a few additional thoughts about arb's current functioning here - but in essence I think arbcom needs to act more quickly in general, be more willing to take steps that break the back of truly intractable problems (and to do so quickly,) and with more understanding of the stress that being the subject of an arbcom case often puts on the primary subjects of the case, especially when decisions are late (as many of them are.) Most people punished by arbcom will continue to be members of our community - and a prolonged public shaming of them far more often than not will both not result in their behavior being improved, and will not result in their motivation of contributing to Wikipedia increasing. In the relatively few instances where people before arbcom need to be permanently removed from our community, such removal should both be done quickly (in the interests of ensuring the health of the community, and humanely - as even if they can't be members of our community, they're still people, and we still shouldn't unnecessarily cause them mental distress.)

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! 12:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I have time to respond to this in full :) I think the GGTF decision made at least a couple of significant errors. Gamergate, though dealing with a lot of the same issues, I think did a much better job at breaking the back of the problem at hand. I think the motion to desysop Neelix should've easily passed (though luckily he was amenable to requesting his own desysop - a question which I think AC probably should have asked him before starting a full case.) This isn't an objection to a specific case, but in general, I'm a bit perturbed by the sheer amount of content covered by either arb or community sanctions, and think a hard cull (or at least hard narrowing) is in order. For instance, given the behavior that triggered the motion, I'm not sure that it's necessary for there to be sanctions about India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan broadly construed.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

Thank you for stepping forward!

2. Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?

   I note that Drmies' eventual close mentions that there was a previous discussion of whether or not that article should have an infobox. Despite claims made by the anti-infobox folks in the previous discussion, I don't see any clear consensus in the first discussion - 4-2 numerically, and many of the people in support of removal just going "per above" or "per project discussions." I don't believe that Wikiprojects can reasonably mandate the appearance of articles under their purview, and thus view "per project discussions" etc as extremely weak !votes in my view. I don't see the first discussion that Drmies' references as having a firm enough consensus in either direction as to be remotely binding. The second discussion is clearly more in favor of having an infobox in the article, and if that discussion existed in a vacuum, I'd see consensus in it to restore the infobox (and probably to trout someone for WP:OWN.) However, since both discussions exist, I would probably have closed with a statement strongly suggesting the use of an advertised RfC or other method to bring in additional previously inactive on that page !voters to form a much more clear consensus than the two discussions combined currently offer. (Even over the two discussions, I still find general favorability towards adding the infobox back, but an RfC that draws more participants would decrease the chance of future conflict over the same issue on the same page.)

4. An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ("not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."

   I will expand on this answer, but as an initial comment I'd like to note that AE-the-board is different from enforcing arbitration decisions. AE-the-board is at its best at handling incidents that don't involve people like Eric (or for that matter, me - I'm not under specific restrictions, but I do edit often enough in areas covered by broader arb sanctions.) AE-the-board in it's current form isn't well suited to dealing with people who are 'vested contributors' (I assume you at least get the gist of what I mean by that term - and I'm including both myself and Eric in it,) and it's hard to see how AE-the-board could be made well suited to handle such contributors. It's also pretty astounding to me how many standing sanctions there are that cover whole topic areas - they easily cover at least half the world's population, if not more, a number I think needs to be drastically reduced and condensed - it's remarkable to me that even someone who watches arbcom cases fairly closely can't be expected to realize every set of sanctions any given article they are editing is covered by. Eric is a particularly interesting case study in terms of how personal sanctions do and do not work - he's followed his civility restriction quite well generally speaking, while not being willing to follow his gender restriction in the same way, which suggests it clearly needs to be revisited. Given some of his past behavior I think there needs to be some sort of restriction related to gender discussions on Eric, but one that he can live with. With most users I'd suggest private discussions with them to find a remedy that is palatable to the user while resolving the issue, but I would be surprised if Eric would engage in such discussions with arbcom in general, let alone me specifically (if I happen to be elected.) I do think that AE-the-board works quite well for many cases, and that an individual admin enforcing arb remedies also works quite well in many instances, but that there's a category of user (including both Eric and myself) where neither process is likely to work well. It's an issue that I need to put more thought in to (as well as gather the thoughts of other people) but one initial thought would be allowing for the possibility of direct escalation to ARCA with the possibility of doing so anonymously, since with many users in that class, retaliation against the complainant could be a legitimate concern (whether by the person they are directly complaining about, or someone else on their behalf.)

Questions from Guerillero

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

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?

   I would be greatly inclined to transfer its role to the functionaries en banc, and there ended up being too many issues with that in practice (there are an awful lot of functionaries, after all,) putting the use of AUSC back in to place, but increasing it to 9 members - which is enough to allow for easy enough discussion even if one or two occasionally have to step away, yet not prone to running in to the issues of too few currently active participants or tied 3-3 votes, both of which I forsee as issues with the current setup.

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?

   There may be problems with the functioning of BASC that I am not myself aware of, but I am inclined to like the idea of a subset of arbitrators at least hearing as a forum of last resort appeals of indefs. I'm not entirely comfortable with BASC overriding outright community bans, but can see something like BASC internally evaluating cbans, and then presenting a formal recommendation at a community forum as to whether or not, in BASC's opinion, lifting the cban is a reasonable idea, or if lifting it would continue to cause disruption. Although I'm aware that AC not infrequently takes up community sanctions as their own, I'm still a little uncomfortable with the idea of BASC unilaterally reversing cbans (though it is within the remit of the committee I'd think, if in a rather twisted way.)

Current Disputes and Cases

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

   People should be excluded from the project outright in one of two situations: when it either becomes clear that they are causing a significant enough level of disruption to the project that the value they add is less than the negative of the disruption they cause coupled with the lost value of contributors they drive away + those who won't contribute to begin with because of the environment they are partially responsible for creating and where no level of lesser sanction will remedy the problem (this is obviously not a simple calculus.) The second situation that warrants an outright siteban is when the initial offense is of such gravity (malicious violations of outing, etc,) that the damage of the initial violation or the risk of a second violation is more than we can reasonably tolerate.

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?

   Unfortunately, we're somewhat limited just by what we can technically do. Most of our remedies involve the assumption that parties are acting in good faith. I do think this is a good general assumption, and would support significantly more direct engagement explaining what exactly the issues are perceived to the party being sanctioned, and good faith non-template style attempts to convey to them how they could alter their behavior to avoid running in to future problems. Though it may surprise some to hear, I think Eric's civility sanction and the communication that accompanied it actually worked pretty well - he certainly acts quite a bit differently than he did a couple of years ago. We do have a few remedies that have occasionallly been used that I think have potential to be used more than they have been - restricting someone to edit only in article space temporarily can be a good alternative to an out and out block, as can banning someone from particular processes and boards where their problematic behavior is most likely to crop up - whether that involves AFD, RFA, ANI, etc. We do run in to an ultimate obstacle at some point since when it comes down to it if someone just doesn't want to be civil and their incivility is significant enough to cause a major issue, we do run out of things to do that don't just involve bans of one form or another. Acting in my role as an admin I've been fairly fond of asking people to agree to a set of restrictions on their behavior in lieu of a lengthy block, even when their behavior could theoretically warrant a lengthy block - and doing so has resulted in several editors reforming from a path that would otherwise likely have resulted in an eventual indef.

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

   I think it exists, and I think it's demonstrated pretty routinely - and is likely to be rather resistant to any attempt to fix it. Linus Torvalds represents a rather good example of the problems that this type of problem has (and is causing) outside of our own community - although it may be more appropriate to term the problem the Linux community is currently facing more of a 'metal man mario' problem, to borrow an analogy from a game later in the series. His abrasiveness is well-documented to have cost the Linux community a number of important developers, but he's almost the ultimate example of VestedContributor, and can behave with a degreee of abrasiveness that would result in any lesser dev being instantly ostracized. Besides having an arbcom willing to aggressively consider disciplining any level of contributor (which to be clear, I would be - including both administrators and fellow arbs if appropriately severe behavior was uncovered,) I'm not sure what action could effectively address the problem (although I'd certainly be willing to discuss potential solutions.)

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

   Admonishments and warnings rarely have any value whatsoever. More often than not it seems from an outside position like they're used because AC feels they have to sanction parties in some way. A FoF that a specific behavior was inappropriate can certainly have value in some situations, but a general admonishment? A reasonable contributor will have picked up on the fact that they did something that wasn't okay, and all an admonishment will do is either irritate them and make them less likely to contribute, or make them laugh - it won't effect their future behavior. (I write this as a proud bearer of a previous arbcom admonishment ;))

Insider Baseball

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

   I think it can, but I also think it tends to provide another opportunity for those involved to take potshots at each other, and further prolongs the arbitration process (which I already view as too long.) I'd support either greatly time-limiting it, or getting rid of it altogether. Any really significant options not thought of by the drafting arbs could always be brought up on the PD talk page or via email (which would also reduce drama generated.)

Question from Biblioworm

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

   While I was an undergraduate, due to a rather unusual set of circumstances, I was part of the de facto management team for a house of sixty women for a bit longer than two years - meaning lots of boring day-to-day dispute resolution. I also participated in leadership roles in a large number of groups that ended up involving, again, a lot of day to day dispute resolution. Once I took a position as WiR at UCB I ended up acting essentially as a TA or subject-specific lecturer depending on how you'd like to construe the role, which involved quite a bit of dispute resolution, often with people significantly older than myself. On-wiki, ignoring the more high profile disputes I've been involved in (Wiki-PR was more like "Byebye now" than dispute resolution - although we did try to make it closer to the latter,) I've pretty frequently been involved in successfully resolving disputes ranging from random stuff I picked up at DRN or AN to behavior I totally randomly picked up on. In at least a few of these instances, people I could've indefinitely blocked I instead worked out an agreement with to avoid further problems of the nature that brought them to my attention to the first place, and who are still happily editing today.

Question from MLauba

2. Your last paragraph in your nomination statement reads as follows: "It concerns me greatly that every study conducted on the English Wikipedia’s demographics has found that the vast majority of our editors are men, generally well-educated, generally fairly-well off, and almost entirely from the Global North. Our encyclopedia aims to encompass the sum of all human knowledge - a lofty goal that we cannot possibly accomplish unless we take steps to ensure that, to borrow from a recent public comment, we’re sending no demographic into a cultural buzzsaw." You yourself appear to be part of the very demographic that is already over-represented, and if elected, would deny a seat on Arbcom that could go to someone actually representative of any other demographic. How do you reconcile this contradiction? MLauba ^(Talk) 19:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

   Oh this question makes me happy :-). You're right - there is a pretty significant apparent contradiction there (as there was when WiR at UCB for that matter - the specific program that initially hired me focused on issues of inequity and inequality in America, so hiring a white cisdude with the last of their grant money represented an apparent interesting contradiction.) Unfortunately, Arbcom's candidate pool is a self-selecting subset of ENWP as a whole. If there was only one seat open and the other candidate was GorillaWarfare or Keilana (as examples, obviously not meant to be an all-inclusive set,) I would either promptly withdraw my candidacy and endorse them. However, that's not the case - I would love to see a day where arbcom's candidate pool included enough people from enough of a diversity of backgrounds that I would feel comfortable simply producing a candidate guide rather than running myself, but we're not at that pool yet. If I'm elected, it's extremely unlikely that I would be denying a seat to to someone like Gorilla - and of available candidates, I believe my experiences dealing with past diversity issues within the Wikimedia movement (including significant experience at a meta level with WMF grantmaking, both as a volunteer and former contractor,) my real-world experiences at Berkeley (both as WiR and as a campus activist against gendered harrassment and violence,) and my other experiences, including with the Ada Initiative and similar groups mean that of our available pool of candidates, I believe I am better suited than most of our current candidate pool to take steps towards making ENWP a friendlier environment towards demographics that are currently under-represented.

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 ?

   It's actually been an explicit policy on ENWP for longer than I've been editing - Wikipedia:Terms_of_use. I believe anyone with the necessary tools can sanction people with strong evidence that they've violated the ToU, especially intentionally - I've done so myself previously. I do differentiate between people like Wiki-PR, people from firms that signed the Donovan House agreement but may not be individually aware of it, people from other PR firms that may be acting in good faith but simply unaware of the ToU, and people editing (even if undisclosed and paid) about the company that normally employees them. I find it appropriate to smush companies like Wiki-PR as they pop up in the most effective way we can, and to try to educate and fix most other violations of the undisclosed paid editing clause. In most cases, doing this doesn't require the intervention of Arbcom - I've never even been a CU, but with evidence I've collected or that has been sent to me by others, in collaboration with some of our CU's, I've been responsible for the blocks of hundreds of undisclosed paid accounts. I've also intervened to educate people unaware of our paid editing provisions, both from Donovan House-compliant firms, and from firms that haven't signed on to the Donovan House agreement as well as people from individual companies. The only situations where I see arbcom generally speaking - as a whole - playing a role in sanctioning people for undisclosed paid editing are where they are well-established community members being intentionally deceptive, as was the case in the Wifione incident. Obviously, tools like CU are useful (albeit to a limited extent) in tracking down undisclosed paid editors, as is pattern recognition. I prefer education over punitive approaches, but with some groups like Wiki-PR/Status Labs, punitive approaches are the only thing likely to even partially work.

Question from Anonymous Coward

1. Should Eric be permitted to discuss his position on gender-related topics? Should Neelix be banned from the topic of sexuality? Who of these two is the greater concern? I am trying to understand your position, consequently anything that explains the reasoning behind your position would be helpful. Saying "Arbcom ruled this-and-that" doesn't count.

   I think Neelix should be broadly banned from human sexuality, use of automated tools, and probably a couple of other things. At this point, I don't view Neelix as a giant risk - mostly because he's been desysopped, his further edits will undoubtedly be scrutinized, he's expressed that he's likely to be inactive for at least a couple months, and I doubt he'll be granted autopatrolled at any point in the remotely near future. Eric's a hell of a content builder and has reformed in terms of civility quite impressively in the last period of time. Given his past disruption regarding issues related to the gendergap, I do believe Eric needs some continuing restriction w/r/t him talking about gender on Wikipedia. His current restriction clearly isn't working - for him or for Wikipedia. In an ideal world, there would be a private discussion between Eric and AC as well as AC and those concerned on the other side to come up with a restriction that works for all involved, but given Eric's frequently stated disdain for AC, I doubt that could happen. I'm uncertain as to what an ideal restriction on Eric would be, and suspect revising it will take a lot of thought. And just to state it explicitly: no, I don't think EC should be sitebanned.

Questions from Giano

2. Do you feel that edits such as this, this, this, and this will enhance your standing as a candidate. You don't seem to be able to cope under pressure. Your user page says that you have extended periods away for ill health, how will these fit in with your duties as an Arbitrator? Giano (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

   I don't think that calling a troll a troll will particularly harm my standing as a candidate, except perhaps among him and his close friends. The current arbitration committee is a couple votes shy of calling you a troll about the same issues I do in the AE2 case. Not having a desire to engage with a troll unnecessarily says little about my ability to cope under pressure. As an administrator, I'm not at all obliged to humor a troll who I've asked dozens of times to refrain from trolling on my talk page. I'd suggest that the number of live national interviews I've given or number of controversial on-wiki decisions I've made and defended would be better gauges of my ability to function under pressure than my desire to needlessly engage with a troll.

Thank you Kevin. Putting aside Wikipedia:No personal attacks. From your rather inadequate response, I'll assume you are unable to explain your actions. In future when you make allegations which are false [1], you may find it wise and prudent to just admit them and if necessary make apologies. Classing those who disagree with you or point out errors as trolls, is unlikely to improve your standing as an election candidate. Giano (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

2. Kevin, from this and many of your other posts, it seems you prefer to do business often by private email - which, of course, no one else can see. You seem to be an extremely busy bee; when not buzzing openly all over Wikipedia, you are communicating privately and receiving privately all manner of horrible things - including death threats Apparently, your family and real life mail has also been compromised. This must be awful for you. Assuming this is all true - why are you subjecting yourself and your suffering family to an Arbcom election? Why is it that you and no other candidates have endured such treatment from the world at large. Indeed is it fair to you and your poor family to proceed with this? Oh and please don't keep calling me a troll, I doubt that I'm the only person here wondering these same questions - you freely post this personal information, so now explain it. Giano (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

   There are large categories of Wikipedia-related business which can't be conducted via public forums; why do you think arbcom has a private list? Although I could've reached out to Neelix over his talk page, since he had stated that he wasn't looking at it and I had an alternate means of communicating with him, I chose to use it. The result was that he agreed to resign his administrative bit under a cloud, is probably more likely to appropriately contribute to Wikipedia in the future, and we avoided the drama of a full arb case about it. I view that as a greatly preferable outcome to the drama that a full case involved, particularly since it lessened the amount of emotional distress someone who has contributed valuable content to Wikipedia previously was subjected to, and I think that most people would agree that that was a preferable outcome. Many of the other private communications I've engaged in that you've objected to have involved confidential details such as those covered in our outing and oversight policies that would literally be blockable if posted on-wiki. I fully support handling as much committee (and administrative) business as reasonable practicable on-wiki, but it's simply not possible to handle certain issues on-wiki (e.g., my communication with Mike V a couple of weeks ago about why a particular user could not possibly have been a sockpuppet of the user they were accused of being a sock of.) Yes, I have been subject to off-wiki harrassment. So have multiple other candidates. Hell, Roger Davies just cited it as one of the primary reasons why arbitrators burn out on Jimbo's talk page. I would suggest that someone who has already been handling it for multiple years is unlikely to burn out over it during a two year arb term. By the way, could you reread the diff you posted above and then strike your allegation that I made a false statement? I think you'll find you misread it. I also find it rather inappropriate that you suggest that someone who has both ongoing disabilities as defined by the ADA and has previously experienced severe illness is an unsuitable candidate for arbcom on that basis.

No, Kevin, I cannot strike the diff. You repeatedly accused Cassianto (or one of his gang/clique/cohorts) of introducing gender unnecessarily into a debate, when that was false. You then failed to apologize. I'm sorry that you fail to realise your much publicised (by you) ill health may make put an extra burden on you fellow Arbs. Giano (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, I stated that they brought gender up unnecessarily in sections after 28's unblock, hijacking sections (like the arbitration subheader the diff you linked I linked to in) that should've been about RO's behavior about some GGTF-mafia. It's in extraordinarily bad taste to suggest that the fact that someone experienced sepsis nearly a full year ago is unfit to serve as an arbitrator. Actually, especially if you're referring to other health conditions I've in the past disclosed on-wiki, since Wikipedia:Non-discrimination_policy governs the behavior of users, I would suggest you backtrack rather than violate a WMF board policy that specifically mentions it cannot be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by lcal project policies. My health and disability status is an issue between my medical professionals and myself, not you. If I was not confident I could serve out a two year term, I would not be running. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, you are not an Arb yet; you are an ordinary Admin, so there is no need for you to carry out all this secretive work by email. Secondly, I'm not interested in details of your medical records and ailments. I am referring to your user page, where at this precise moment you say quite clearly: "I have severe occasional recurring health issues, and will occasionally disappear." If you don't want to be questioned about this subject, do not broadcast it in the first place. Thirdlyy, please stop threatening me with board policies etc, which I doubt you properly understand. It's your naivety in these matters and the highhanded busy way you generally treat people on Wikipedia that leave me to believe you are unsuitable to be ab Arbitrator. Giano (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Giano, you may be unaware of it, but in the course of their ordinary duties admins (and even normal users) active in certain areas are absolutely required to conduct business off-wiki. Some time ago there was an open SPI where I had information indicating that the person accused of being a sock of someone else could not possibly be a sock of that other person. Revealing the information why that person couldn't have been a sock would've been a drastic violation of WP:OUTING, and I would've rightfully been blocked. Instead I emailed the information to the CU involved, and the SPI was closed without further action, as it should've been. Do you believe only arbitrators and CU's should handle processes like SPI that often involve information that cannot be disclosed on-wiki? If so, I hope to see an RfC from you in the immediate future suggesting we greatly increase the number of arbs and CU's we have, because arbcom is overloaded as it is and couldn't possibly take over SPI on top of everything else they're already expected to do. Thanks for pointing out to me that I need to update my userpage (there's more than a couple other bits I need to update,) but snarky comments about a candidate's health and disability status are inappropriate, and I expect you to stop them presently. Asking "Can you reasonably expect to carry out a two year term?" is a perfectly acceptable question, "I'm sorry that you fail to realise your much publicised (by you) ill health may make put an extra burden on you fellow Arbs." isn't an appropriate statement. I'd encourage you to listen; the WMF board policy is based on the ADA, with which I am quite familiar. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's appropriate to question you about something you have written on your user page - do get over yourself. No, I don't see why you need to conduct business off-wiki; you are a mere admin, one of thousands, The only difference between you and the rest is that you seem to have ideas above your station. I suspect in the unlikely event you become an Arb you'll be even more insufferably pompous. Giano (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Worm That Turned

2. Hi, I'm Dave, I was on Arbcom between 2013 and 2014. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?

   I've had my comments taken out of context, motives and abilities insulted, and been threatened and harrassed pretty much since I started editing Wikipedia. I'm actually still receiving death threats for my involvement in the article about the men's rights movement article from over four years ago at this point. I've already been doxxed enough to the point that if anyone manages to dox me further, I'd actually be impressed, since in all likelihood they would be digging up information about me that I didn't know myself :p. I've been the target at one point or another of a solid chunk of the off-wiki groups that like going after Wikipedians, and think I've been the recipient of ten or fifteen comments today alone that would've been non-controversial NPA blocks in many circumstances. I'm sure I'll manage to annoy a wider diversity of folks if I'm elected, but I think I'm pretty well prepared for the level of harrassment likely to come with it - I've already received phoned, emailed, and snail mailed deaththreats, as well as had my employers and members of my family contacted off-wiki.

4. Can you give an example of an issue close to your heart where you have substantially changed your opinion based on discussion? I'd like to see evidence of taking other people's opinions on board.

   Well, a couple of years ago, I probably would've voted to ban EC given the opportunity (ignoring the fact that I'll be recusing w/r/t him anyway.) His behavior has changed sufficiently that I'd no longer do so, although I do think his gender sanction needs a rewrite to make it workable for both him and the community. I've undone or modified a decent number of my own blocks after discussion with the person I was blocking, either revising blocks downwards or replacing them with essentially mentorship agreements after they'd convinced me that they were likely to be effective. I was responsible for all of the initial blocks of Jack the Vicar who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of Colonel Henry - but after extensive private discussions with him, found this unlikely to be the case, have been arguing privately against his ban, and have restored the three GA's he had to his name (including directly checking the majority of sources in one of them) both seeing no point in throwing away good content and not believing that G5 applies to GA's per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors this part of our banning policy. On Meta I've been quite active in the grants program, and have pretty frequently changed my initial instinct after further discussion with the applicants. A good chunk of the last year has seen me edit relatively little content thanks to health problems that are now primarily handled, but historically I've changed my mind a decent bit on those articles I've edited that others have edited at the same time. I'd have to diff-stalk myself more than I have time for tonight, but I've changed my !vote on a number of editor or content restriction type proposals on the admin boards over the years. (which isn't to say I won't do so before the voting period begins - I'm not viewing any of the answers I've put up as final answers, just preliminary ones.)

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?

   Nope. Most of the Wiki-PR case among other prominent cases was handled through mechanisms other than SPI (including an awful lot of emails, which are perfectly appropriate when dealing with confidential or potentially confidential emails.) Admins who see (or have pointed out to them) can use their own discretion to block questionable editors of their own accord, as can CU's etc (although often technical data is useless, especially when dealing with paid sock farms.) When dealing paid sock farms or other longterm disruptive similar issues, it's often a good thing to not use SPI -- because they monitor the process and that can often tip them off to how we're catching them. Emailing admins or CU's who have a decent history of bopping socks - especially if they're familiar with the case in question - is often a better idea than actually going through SPI. SPI of course remains an option, but especially in situations involving farms that monitor their own SPI's, often is not the most desirable mechanism for dealing with the editors you describe.

Question from User:Ritchie333

2. I am sorry to say I have been disappointed with the level of profanity and civility I have recently seen from you, including "clearly done using a poorly written bot that fucked up a DB pull", "someone has made 80k articles that are primarily crap ... His script fucked up a DB pull" and "if you create any more of this shit before this situation is resolved, I'm blocking you for a severe violation of bot policy and emailing arbcom, crats, and anyone else I can think of". I'm a grown up and I can handle the "f" word easily, but the language here is not too dissimilar from what caused several blocks of Eric Corbett. How can you reassure me that you will be able to handle arbitration cases calmly, fairly and rationally?

   Well, to start off with, I don't think the Eric comparison is apt - when such language led to blocks of Eric, is was pursuant to an arbcom remedy and part of a much larger pattern of behavior on his part at the time - and was also generally directed towards individual people (where most of my language in this case wasn't.) To be blunt, I was caught pretty off-guard by the entire situation - it was an administrator I've met multiple times in real life engaging in behavior much of which was more in line with what we usually see from juvenile vandals (tumorous titties? seriously?). It was also as far as I know an actually unprecedented case - I don't think we've actually had any admin do something comparable in ENWP's history. I guess I'd point out that a lot of his content was clearly made using a script that severely messed up a database pull (which is why we have WP:BAG,) and that rather than blocking Neelix for what was a very massive violation of our bot policy, I instead first emailed arbcom suggesting a private motion to desysop him, and, when that failed, talked him in to resigning his bit off-wiki, a course which minimized drama compared to what a full case would've entailed. So I certainly can't promise I won't curse at any point, but it'll generally be at situations rather than maliciously directed at people, and my aim will still be to both ensure the interests of the community are upheld, and to minimize drama.

• Kevin Gorman, this is totally not my place to speak and if you want to delete this pronto or move it elsewhere I'm fine with that, but this is a rather public forum. Ritchie333, it's a fair question, but I have also been involved with this particular case, from the beginning (it started on my talk page...), and have deleted hundreds of sexist/fetishistic redirects that made my skin crawl and that made me completely embarrassed: I had a hard time telling Mrs. Drmies what the (male) internet had been up to. I may have done a slightly better job than Kevin biting my tongue, but I had to bite it a lot--a lot. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 20 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.

   I'm limiting my answer here not out of doubt of your good faith, but because one prominent voter guide has already held my health against me. I'm in my 20's, living in Southern California. I have multiple severe physical disabilites, but none that should reasonably prevent me from completing a term as an arb. I have significant instructional experience at UC Berkeley in the ethnic studies department as well as TA'ing courses related to environmental and restorative justice (though I am white.) Fully describing my gender identity etc would take quite a bit of text, but I present as a cisdude. I was raised in an upper-middle class family, but my medical costs coupled with my current inability to take most forms of work full time may make that designation less relevant.

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

   Most non-administrators will be less entangled in wikipolitics than most admin candidates will be; at the same time, unless the RfC currently ongoing about it passes in their favor (or they simply run successful RFA's after being elected arbs,) it brings up some practical issues. Arbs who request them are issued OS bits - one of the frequent uses of which is to suppress WP:OUTING and similarly nasty stuff. Other administrators aren't always available to block in convenient timeframes when situations like this are going on, and it also risks creating a two-tier arb system - one 'fully-fledged' set of arbs who can carry out their full set of duties including performing arb-blocks, and one set of arbs unable to do things like perform blocks to stop stuff like in-process outing.

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?

   If the names are identical and the Reddit account doesn't reveal personal information about Bar that hasn't been self-disclosed by Bar on-wiki elsewhere, I would not be inclined to sanction Foo for outing (although I would almost certainly redact the information initially for private discussion with other arbs.) I have seen others make (and have personally made) different calls regarding this depending on the very individualized circumstances (and there's a sentence about it in WP:OUTING in fact.) Really though, if this is a case already before arbcom, it would be a much better choice on Foo's part to simply foward the evidence in private to arbcom. Even in situations where it isn't a case before arbcom, it would be a good idea for Foo to email an administrator the evidence rather than doing something like going to ANI with it. Quite a few blocks (especially with things like the men's rights movement community sanctions) have been dealt with in a similar manner. If I saw Foo post information that was likely on the wrong side of WP:OUTING in the course of my day to day activities (regardless of whether or not I end up getting elected,) I would RD it (or OS it if I do happen to get elected,) and then evaluate the situation on its merits. If I thought it was nonmalicious on the part of Foo, I wouldn't be inclined to take punitive action, and would evaluate the evidence itself to determine what, if anything, to do about Bar (as well as explaining the situation, including the details of outing and a warning not to do it again, to Foo.)

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?

   This answer presupposes that the accounts are linked and there's sufficient evidence to establish the linkage. I would prefer to see a situation where arbcom conducted a thorough investigation immediately after receiving such an accusation (and having previously worked as both an abuse admin and skiptracer, am confident I could gather enough evidence to make the best decision based on any remotely discoverable info) and if finding the accusation justified, instantly sitebanned the hell out of Bob. If this didn't happen and the evidence trail was in fact strong (and arbcom rapidly acting on its wn is really what should happen,) I would not find Alice's offsite behavior sufficiently problematic to siteban her. Revenge porn is not cool beans, and if for some reason arbcom didn't take action with sufficient evidence available, I think it would be actively wrong to punish Alice for seeking other recourse. There's also the frequently repeated mantra that blocks are preventative, not punitive - and the only way blocking Alice in this situation would be preventative is if you were, er, worried that she was going to out you for posting her nudes or something.

Question by Müdigkeit

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

   For at least the nexxt year, for the most part, as many as needed (included drating plans to shorten the process and turn it in to more of an inquisitorial process - which is what it's mandate is - than an adversarial one, which is what it currently often functions as.) I will certainly have to take occasional absences (ex: I probably won't be able to maintain the same committment to arbcom during weeks when I'm involved in active litigation, and expect to be involved in active litigation in the next year,) but expect these to be less frequent than those of many current arbs.