Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Question from User:Doc James

2. What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's roll in enforcement of the WP:TOU?

Question from Ajraddatz

2. Hey Newyorkbrad, thanks for running. In your statement, you suggest that the role of ArbCom is lessening over time, but that it maintains some other important functions. One of these is the management of CU/OS permissions, despite long-standing concerns with ArbCom's role in governance. My question is whether you think this role could be given back to the community for elections rather than selection by ArbCom, acknowledging the fact that the initial elections system did not work and something else would need to be tried. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks for the question. If the community made it clear that it wanted to return to electing Checkusers (CU) and Oversighters (OS), I would not stand in the way. However, my own opinion is that the current method of having the elected ArbCom make the selections, after full vetting and an opportunity for community comments on the candidates, is preferable. The main reason is the enormous amount of our editors' collective time and effort that is necessarily expended in any wiki-wide election process. The time and effort of editors is our project's most precious resource, and any community-wide election consumes hundreds if not thousands of hours of such efforts. Given that ArbCom has done a thorough and reasonable job in scrutinizing and selecting CUs and OSs, which is my perception, and is picking more-or-less the same people who would be elected anyway, I don't see why we'd need to make the change. Relatedly, in one calendar year a few years ago, English Wikipedia editors were asked to vote in the Stewards election, the WMF Board of Trustees election, one or two CU/OS elections, an Audit Subcommittee election, plus the ArbCom election. It was just too much of a good thing, and election fatigue was setting in, and we don't want that either.

   Not sure if it's customary to respond after the answer is given, but that seems like a very sensible perspective to me. I especially agree regarding voter fatigue and the success that the process has had thus far in selecting good candidates. Best of luck! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Mark Arsten

2. Hi Brad, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security.
   What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?

   I have strong passwords on my wiki-related accounts, which are different from my passwords on any other accounts, and change them regularly. I think the recent incidents were handled as they had to be, with the affected accounts being globally locked until the Office could verify they were secure again. I don't know whether there is a further, behind-the-scenes review of the incident ongoing, to determine what specific methods the hacker may have used and whether there should be a law-enforcement report made. The implementation of the 2FA option seems a logical next step, whether or not the timing was coincidental.

Questions from Carrite

2. Thanks for running. This year's ArbCom took very few cases and seems to have kept to deadlines more expeditiously. I think most everyone can agree that this was for the good. What do you think was the biggest mistake made by ArbCom in 2016? What letter grade (A to F) would you give their performance? What could they do better?

   I don't particularly want to critique, much less "grade," my successors on the Committee, but it's no secret I think the Michael Hardy case was not handled well. By unnecessarily accepting the case, and proposing some of the remedies that were considered, the effect was to transform what would have been a relatively minor, if unfortunate, squabble into a deeper and more prolonged one. That's the opposite of the Committee's role, as was ultimately recognized, but should IMHO have been seen a bit sooner.

4. Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?

   I read the site regularly and post there occasionally. As I've written before, it's a mixed bag. Some of the comments there contain reasonable, well-informed observations about Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Some of the other comments, to say the least, don't.

Question from Rschen7754

2. You have served on ArbCom for seven years, and if you were elected, it would bring the total to nine years. Arbitration can be, to say the least, a role that exposes you to the more unpleasant elements of the project. Do you think that after such a long time that you still have the energy/enthusiasm that this role demands? --Rschen7754 06:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

   Hi, and thanks for the question. There's a long discussion about this subject on my talkpage from when I was considering whether to run, which might be of interest. You're aware that I have been off the Committee for the past two years, which has helped recharge the batteries. The bottom line is that if elected I anticipate no trouble at all staying focused on and committed to all ArbCom responsibilities. If the Committee were still deciding a hundred cases a year I'd probably feel differently.

Questions from Begoon

2. Would you be willing to expand on these thoughts you expressed on your talk page: "If I do run again and get elected, can we go back to 2008 again, and I'll do it right this time, not screwing up the Mantanmoreland case or getting sucked down D.B.'s and Poetlister's rabbit-holes, and all ... "

   I could do that, but it would become a very long essay, and I promised myself I'd keep my answers on this page reasonably succinct. The short version is that when I was a rookie arbitrator I made some rookie mistakes. At this late stage it would be, if any, a different kind of mistakes.

4. Under what circumstances do you feel that legal action should be taken against persons who act outside the WMF "Terms of Use", and how effective do you think such action would be?

   Only as a last resort to resolve persistent and chronic abuse that is not being stopped through lesser means. The effectiveness might depend on factors such as the rationality, risk-averseness and the geographical location of the person in question. But there are definitely some folks out there who don't care so much about being blocked a hundred times and having an LTA case opened, who would think twice if they receive a formal cease-and-desist letter from the General Counsel's office.

6. Nobel Prize: Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, both, or neither?

   The ArbCom does not decide matters of policy.

Questions from Collect

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   No.

4. If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   The term "aversion" is vague. If the administrator has said "I dislike you as a person," which he or she shouldn't have said anyway, then the admin should stay miles away from actions involving that editor. If the "aversion" is based on, for example, the editor's long history of vandalism, that might be different.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

   a. Generally yes, as long as the request is credible and the extension length reasonable; of course, the interests of other affected editors must also be weighed. b. Generally yes. c. If the evidence is significant and its substance hasn't already been addressed already, then yes. More broadly, restrictions such as word limits, time limits, and the like exist to serve and facilitate the process and not to impede it. d. Where the evidence is significant to the outcome of the decision and affected editors are given notice of it and a reasonable time to respond.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Biblioworm

2. Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:

   • Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
   • Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:

   1. Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.
   2. Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).

   • Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
   • Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
   • Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.

   Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.

   Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
   
   

   Thanks for the question. Let me begin with a general comment that I would be glad to consider changes to ArbCom procedures, particularly if they would help simplify the arbitration process, which must sometimes overwhelm those who are new to it. However, I'm not sure that the proposals you suggest reflect points that need to be changed. I'll go through them in order:
   

   • "Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues)". With respect to appointing functionaries (checkusers and oversighters), there are two methods of doing so that are acceptable to the WMF. One is community-wide election and the other is selection by an ArbCom. I've already explained in my answer to Ajraddatz's question above why I don't favor going back to elections, so that means ArbCom gets the job—and I'm not sure who else might do it, since we don't have any other elected body on English Wikipedia.
   • "... and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)" I know that the arbitrators don't especially want to deal with some of those issues. During my last term on the Committee, there was a major effort to get the WMF Office to take on some of the most difficult off-wiki tasks, such as child-protection blocks and the most serious harassment cases. I would continue to support the Office's dealing with these issues to the extent it is willing or able to do so. But for a variety of reasons, the Office will only take on the most troublesome problems, expecting local communities to address the others where they can. If there is something that can't be addressed on-wiki, so the choice is either having ArbCom deal with the problem or leaving the problem completely untouched, sometimes ArbCom is the necessary choice.
   • "Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision)..." Cases with unclear scope are a problem, and the Committee should do its best to define what a case is about when it takes one. It may occasionally happen that the appropriate scope of a case changes based on unanticipated evidence or new developments, but if that happens then the arbitrators should clearly say so and give the parties a chance to address the revised scope before issuing the decision.
   • "Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties."' I understand your point here, but allowing non-parties to present evidence or workshop proposals—on-topic and within reason—helps ensure that all the relevant evidence is presented and hence that the best decision is reached. (It also helps editors get some experience of the arbitration process and decide whether they're interested in becoming arbitrators.) I perceive there has been an effort this year to reduce the amount of irrelevant or inflammatory material presented, and that's a good thing. Please also note that an unwanted side effect of an "only parties can participate in the case" rule would be an increased amount of counterproductive bickering about exactly who the official parties should be.
   • "Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer." I think this is already happening, and I am not sure the "rather widespread perception" you point to really exists, or should. As another candidate already pointed out, the current ArbCom has site-banned exactly one user in a formal decision this year, and I don't think it was much more than that last year or the year before. My own reputation from my prior terms was as someone who supported banning only as a last resort—but sometimes even a last resort needs to be implemented, lest the one problematic editor we struggle to keep drives five other productive editors away.
   • "Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours)..." The ArbCom doesn't directly administer AE, but I think this is generally a good idea, except perhaps in the most urgent or clear-cut situations.
   • "Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions..." I'm not sure just what sort of motions you mean. If you mean they should be allowed to make proposals in an open arbitration case, they can do that on the workshop page (although this may be in tension with your "peanut gallery" concern above). If you mean they should be allowed to make proposals relating to older cases, if an issue comes up, it can be raised with a suggestion for a motion on the "clarifications and amendments" page. If you mean some other type of motions could you please clarify. Thank you.

Questions from Opabinia

2. Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standing and widespread dissatisfaction.

   I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? I know you've commented on this before, but I wanted to ask everyone who isn't a current arb the same question, sorry for the repetitiveness ;) Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?

   The decline in ArbCom's role in terms of full-fledged cases has been steady for more than a decade (I first wrote about it here, four years ago). The trend is partly outside ArbCom's control, as fewer cases are being brought for consideration, and partly within its control, in the arbitrators' decision-making as to what cases that are brought should be accepted. My philosophy of case acceptance was typically to accept a case only when the dispute was either protracted (as opposed to a one-off) or very serious, and where there seemed to be a reasonable likelihood that an arbitration decision could actually help solve the problem, rather than just provide a forum for weeks of venting about it. I think that sums up the acceptance criteria used by most other arbitrators as well, although reasonable minds can differ on where the lines are drawn in a particular case. I have no advance view that each year the Committee should aim to decide X number of cases, for some predetermined approximation of X; the Committee should decide all the disputes brought before it where the community hasn't been able to resolve them and where arbitration can help. I think that is likely to continue to be in the 5-to-10 per year range rather than in the multiples of that we saw years ago; but it wouldn't break my heart if it were a dozen, and it wouldn't break my heart if it were none.
   
   The growth we have seen in the clarifications-and-amendments docket is predictable, because as time goes on, more and more on-wiki disputes turn out to be related to or outgrowths of prior disputes, rather than brand-new ones. "C-and-A" is also the forum for requests to terminate sanctions imposed by ArbCom decisions, as well as for appeals from AE sanctions, so as the number of editors affected by such sanctions continues to grow (though not exponentially), appeals may grow proportionately. Sometimes a request is just for advice and one or two arbitrators' comments are enough to resolve it, but other times, as when a topic-ban-lift is sought, broader arb input is necessary. I think what is needed here is full recognition by the arbitrators that the C-and-A page is an integral part of ArbCom's responsibility for resolving cases and keeping them resolved, rather than being secondary to current cases, so that arbitrators should keep an eye on this page and participate where they can be helpful.
   
   Regarding AN and ANI, as well as other elements of dispute-resolution besides ArbCom, I've written before and will repeat here that I think a broad community discussion of what is working and what is not is in order. There is no room here for me to set forth all my thoughts about AN/ANI, but I note that in addition to comments I've made before, several of the other candidates have made useful comments in their answers to this question. One thing not commonly realized is that AN/ANI now picks up user-conduct disputes that at times in the past decade were handled through four prior processes (the personal attacks noticeboard, the Wikiquette noticeboard, the community sanctions noticeboard, and RFC/U), all of which were deprecated via MfD, so it is no wonder that some disputes seem intractable. Another thing I observed in passing a couple of months ago is that if I'm deciding whether to comment in an AN/ANI thread, I typically won't bother to post if the point I would make has been made by others—except that if the thread suddenly morphs from a "what is to be done" thread into a "I propose we community-sanction this person" thread, suddenly my input in support or opposition to a sanction is significant even if my reasoning is indeed duplicative; this uncertainty may help evoke unnecessary duplicative comments. But as I say, this isn't the place for an organized critique of AN/ANI—but there needs to be such a place; I've asked a couple of editors if they'd like to start one, but if not, maybe I'll do so once the election is over. Also overdue for evaluation is the disputes resolution noticeboard (DRN) for content disputes; my impression is that it is working well, but I don't know that there's been any systematic review of it since its inception a couple of years ago. I don't know that the Arbitration Committee as a Committee can help much with AN/ANI, unless someone were to bring a case against editors acting problematically there and the Committee found someone was acting so poorly as to warrant sanctions, which I am not suggesting. I also note that in one situation this year, an AN thread on whether to ban a editor was explicitly closed with a result of "the community is hopelessly divided; we're punting this one to ArbCom"—whereupon the Committee accepted the case and decided it.

4. What aspects of the committee's work did you find most (or least) satisfying when you were a member? Do you expect this to change much in a new term?

   The most satisfying, though this won't help the voters in evaluating me because by definition the instances were invisible, were the times when I was able to anticipate that something was likely to turn into a problem if not addressed, and head the problem off before it became a problem. Other satisfying times were when I wrote a decision or crafted some language that was broadly acceptable to the other arbitrators and the community and which helped resolve a dispute. Also fulfilling were times when a majority of the Committee was leaning toward a finding or a remedy that I thought was unfair—typically though not invariably, that I thought was unduly harsh—and was able to convince my colleagues to change their minds. Unsatisfying, but an integral part of the job, were the times when I was unable to convince my colleagues and wound up in dissent on a remedy or motion, sometimes a lonely dissent of one. Least "satisfying," but essential, were dealing with off-wiki harassment and similar situations; this role has decreased as the Office now deals with some of the most troublesome situations, but the Committee must still be involved with some of them.

Question from TH1980

2. I have encountered clique behavior at certain Wikipedia pages where members band together and establish de facto rule over them, rejecting out of hand any and all attempts by others to edit the pages and refusing to engage in meaningful discussions on the talk pages about the proposed edits. I have also been harassed and bullied by members of such cliques, up to and including being threatened with being page or topic banned, even though none of these clique members were admins and thus had no such power. Their attitude was basically "Get out! This is our page!" What is your stance regarding cliques who behave in such an uncivil manner?TH1980 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

   Obviously, a situation such as you describe, in which a group of editors on a page entrench themselves and reject all edits to the page, regardless of their quality, and refuse to discuss the issues, is contrary to the wiki model of collaborative editing, and should be stopped. Of course, that sort of unacceptable situation needs to be distinguished from one in which an editor is trying to edit against a legitimate consensus, or in a way that's against policy, or is factually inaccurate, in which case the group of editors might actually be correct (although the editors should still be explaining themselves, and threats of seeking topic-bans should not be made lightly). Administrators and, where necessary, arbitrators need to carefully review the editing history to distinguish bad-faith page ownership from good-faith quality control and ensure that proposed edits are evaluated on their merits rather than reflexively or cliqueishly.

Question from Banedon

2. Suppose you are the only member on Arbcom so your vote is decisive on everything. What would be your preferred results from the Michael Hardy and TRM cases this year? For illustration the kind of answers I'm looking for would be, "sanction X, topic ban Y, implement Z" or "I would have voted for this remedy, but opposed this one". I'm particularly curious about how you would have voted in the results that split the current committee, including the ones that did not pass, e.g. this or this. Banedon (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks for the question. Regarding the Michael Hardy case, as I've said elsewhere, my preferred result would have been for the Committee not to have accepted the case. While there was some suboptimal user conduct involved, that squabble was not one of the one hundred most pressing disputes on Wikipedia this year, and there was nothing in it that I thought required an arbitration case. If, however, we take it as a given that the case was accepted—and that it wasn't going to be dismissed as unnecessary after the evidence was in—you can read for yourself how I would have approached it as an arbitrator, because in an unsuccessful effort to deescalate things on all sides, I workshopped the case and wrote up some proposals of my own, here. The tone of some of the wording in my workshop proposals was a bit more flippant than I would use in an actual decision, but you'll get a good sense of what I thought of everything. When the actual proposed decision was posted, there was some discussion about it on my talkpage, which may have helped lead to some improvements in the final decision as passed.
   
   Sorry, but no comments from me on the second case you mentioned. I've had some sharp disagreements recently with the editor in question, and if I'd been on the Committee when that case arose, I would have recused myself.

Question from *thing goes

Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:

1. Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
2. Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?

--18:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have little technical expertise in the cybersecurity arena and am not someone who will be taking a lead in making policy or promoting technical advances in this area. I am always glad to follow reasonable guidelines for how information security of sensitive information can be preserved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from The Rambling Man

2. Your contribution history (this year alone) shows you barely participate in the addition of quality content to the encyclopedia. How can we trust that you understand the machinations of the debates around the policies and behaviours of those who actively contribute to the quality content of the project?

   That's a fair question. My overall participation in Wikipedia has been lower than usual this year, and although I have had mainspace contributions, I haven't been a major author of the encyclopedia recently—a point also made by Iridescent here. I acknowledged my lower level of activity recently, and discussed some of the reasons for it, last week in this thread on my talkpage when some editors approached me and asked if I would run for arbitrator again. Some of my other scholarly and hobby activities that have taken up some of what would have been my wikitime this year are winding down, and I anticipate an increased rate of mainspace contributions in the future—but I've said that before, and I can certainly understand if some people are skeptical.
   
   That said, I'm not exactly unknown to the mainspace either. I've written about 125 articles, albeit most of them in the early part of my wiki-career. I've participated in plenty of the "debates around the policies and behaviours of those who actively contribute to the quality content of the project" that you refer to, in various pages around the project over the past ten-plus years. And you and the other voters can read my writings about Wikipedia and Wikipedians over the past ten years, many linked from my talkpage, and decide whether I seem attuned to the needs of both the encyclopedia and of the community and contributors that create and sustain it.
   
   More importantly, though, you can decide whether I am sufficiently attuned to the needs of our more active content editors, whom I've always acknowledged as the backbone of what we do here, by evaluating the decisions I wrote and supported during my prior tenure on the Committee. I am sure that you, or any experienced editor, will disagree with one or more of the findings or remedies I supported in voting on over a hundred decisions, and you and I have disagreed from time to time over other matters as well. However, on the whole, I would like to think that my arbitration work showed respect for the work done by our content editors, while emphasizing that everyone's contributions must adhere to fundamental policies such as the use of reliable sources, the accurate citation of sources without misrepresentation or distortion of their contents, the avoidance of undue weight, and compliance with the biographies of living persons policy (always a high priority of mine). I also have always viewed, and continue to view, imposing sanctions that prevent or restrict a good-faith, knowledgeable content contributor from adding to Wikipedia as something to be avoided whenever possible—although sometimes unavoidable, as where keeping one problematic contributor active would risk driving others away.
   
   Lastly, as you know, outside the occasional emergency situation, the Wikipedia arbitration process allows plenty of time and opportunity for interested parties and editors to share relevant evidence and information with the arbitrators before any decisions are made. If there is background information concerning a particular debate or policy or behavioral issue, which anyone believes the arbitrators should take into account in deciding a given dispute, there is ample opportunity to call it to the Committee's attention.

4. In relation to the recent 'Arbcom case' which saw my eventual de-sysopping and active sanctions against me, would you accept a case in which dozens of individuals had been canvassed and encouraged to contribute, all of whom had been notified because they had been in conflict with the subject for one reason or another over the past decade?

   I don't think you are asking me to do this, but just for the avoidance of doubt, I'd prefer not to comment on the merits of the specific arbitration case involving yourself. As I mentioned above in response to another question, you and I have had a number of sharp on-wiki disagreements over the past couple of years, and if I'd been on the Committee when the case was brought against you, I would have recused myself.
   
   Treating your question on a more general level, I would work hard not to be influenced to accept a case (or take any other kind of action) as the result of biased input brought about by unbalanced canvassing. At the same time, if an actual problem warranting arbitration exists, the compounding of the problem through a WP:CANVASS violation wouldn't make the original problem go away. My goal in such a situation would be to ensure that I had maximum available information on all sides of the question so that the ultimate decision would be the same as it would have been in the absence of the unbalanced canvassing.

Questions from Antony-22

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?

   The basic "civility" principle that was used in ArbCom decisions ten years ago read, very simply, "editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." I don't see that expectation as a problem, although we all know that enforcement raises questions of line-drawing. Harassment, in Wikipedia parlance, is generally defined as repeated (or, I might add, exceptionally severe) offensive behavior targeted at another editor with the intent of making that editor feel threatened, intimidated, uncomfortable, or to discourage them from editing.

4. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

   I believe reasonable standards of civility and decorum are readily attainable from all editors, regardless of what brought them to Wikipedia.

6. More specifically, let's say a professional at one of these institutions complains to ArbCom that another editor is using uncivil language that violates their organizations' internal rules, and thus their engagement with Wikipedia is jeopardizing their job. What considerations would go into ArbCom resolving such a case?

   I am not sure I understand your question. You are positing a situation in which an editor says "my employer is threatening to fire me because some other people on Wikipedia are rude"? I've never heard of anything like that happening.

8. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press in the past. 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?

   In general, ArbCom's role does not include liaison with the press. In a couple of instances during my prior tenure as an arbitrator I was interviewed about the Committee's work, but I responded only on behalf of myself. If in an exceptional case the press reported a widespread and harmful misunderstanding of an ArbCom action, I might recommend that the arbitrators consult with the communications team at the Office regarding what, if anything, might be done to correct the record. But it is also true that in cases that are likely to attract attention, extra care at the drafting stage can help avoid such misunderstandings. I've caught a few such instances in recent years, both when I was and wasn't on the Committee, and suggested changes to the wording that may have alleviated an unwanted misreading of a principle, finding, or remedy.

Questions from Sarah777

1. Would you support the unconditional lifting of restrictions placed on me by Arbcom about 7 years ago?

   I would certainly evaluate any such request you filed with an open mind, especially after that much time. In considering such an appeal, I would apply the test I used in the past regarding any such request, which primarily asks whether if the restrictions were lifted, whether the editor would be able to avoid the problems in his or her future editing that led to the restrictions' being imposed to begin with. That said, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to review your specific case and give an opinion regarding a hypothetical appeal on this questions page.

2. Do you accept that there is an in-built bias towards an "Anglo-Saxon" perspective on En Wikipedia?

   In terms of the scope of article coverage, there is certainly greater coverage on English Wikipedia of topics relating to English-speaking peoples than others, because of both the availability of sources and the knowledge and interests of our editor base. There is also greater coverage of the developed than the developing world, for reasons which have been discussed at length all over the project. To that extent I'd say the answer to your question is yes. But if what you are really asking whether the article content is biased in favor of British perspectives as opposed to others in terms of NPOV, the answer is that I haven't observed that, though I haven't specifically looked at the issue.

3. Do you acknowledge that "civility" is often used as a political weapon by Admins to suppress perspectives they disagree with? Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

   I'm sure it's happened on occasion, and if and when it happens, it needs to be stopped. But it also happens that accusations of taking sides are advanced against administrators who are simply trying in good faith to enforce neutrality and decorum on contentious articles, and that shouldn't happen either.

Question from That man from Nantucket

2. Brad, can you please stop using Latin and legalese? Many find Arbcom members to be full of themselves. And this doesn't help. There is something to be said for speaking plainly.

   Hi. Where have I used Latin or legalese, anywhere on this page, or anywhere at all on-wiki recently, actually? I've been doing my best to keep my responses and postings as straightforward as possible, and will continue to try to do that.

Questions from George Ho

2. If a person subject to the case avoided one of the phases of the accepted ArbCom case, how would the person's avoidance or boycott affect the overall results of the case?