Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Questions from Banedon




Question from SilkTork

 * The vote counting is not an issue, it's the preparation that people have to go through before they cast their vote that I am thinking of. Those voting will read through candidates' statements, these question and answer pages, and the voter guides. And then look for themselves into a candidate's contributions history. This takes time. The more candidates there are, the more reading and research that people will have to do. This is acceptable when the candidates at least have some chance, but given your history, with respect, you don't. I do agree with you, however, that we should perhaps look at the nomination criteria, though historically the community have always wanted to keep Wikipedia as open as possible, and to allow for the exceptional. There tends to be one or two candidates each year who are doing it to be disruptive or for their own personal fun, and we tolerate that. But in your case I thought you were a genuine candidate who was just a bit misguided, and you sounded reasonable, so I wondered if I could appeal to you to withdraw in order to save people the time and effort of reading through all the material related to you. SilkTork (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The vote counting is not an issue, it's the preparation that people have to go through before they cast their vote that I am thinking of. Those voting will read through candidates' statements, these question and answer pages, and the voter guides. And then look for themselves into a candidate's contributions history. This takes time. The more candidates there are, the more reading and research that people will have to do. This is acceptable when the candidates at least have some chance, but given your history, with respect, you don't. I do agree with you, however, that we should perhaps look at the nomination criteria, though historically the community have always wanted to keep Wikipedia as open as possible, and to allow for the exceptional. There tends to be one or two candidates each year who are doing it to be disruptive or for their own personal fun, and we tolerate that. But in your case I thought you were a genuine candidate who was just a bit misguided, and you sounded reasonable, so I wondered if I could appeal to you to withdraw in order to save people the time and effort of reading through all the material related to you. SilkTork (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions from Beyond My Ken

 * 1) {{ACE Question
 * Q=The WMF is a non-profit, sure, but they have multiple concerns, and have consistently shown that serving the en.wiki community is not always their highest priority among them.The Arbitration Committee does not work for Jimmy Wales any more than the President, Congress and Supreme Court of the United States "work for" James Madison or the other authors of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, less so, because Wales devolved some of his power and authority as founder onto the Arbitration Committee, and it would be practically impossible at this point for him to take it back without a major revolt from the community of en.wiki editors.  Nor could Wales unilaterally change an ArbCom finding without the same result, so, no, ArbCom does not "work for" either the WMF or Jimmy Wales any more then I do."Editor abuse" as a term of art does not generally consist of "abuse" as legally defined.  Also, please be aware that as their servers are located in the United States, American law is  generally controlling, not the law in any other jurisdiction (although individual editors in those jurisdictions may be subject to those laws).{{parabr}}Whether there is a "a significant amount of email and mailing list work" is irrelevant, your statement that cases are "primarily" generated through this medium is outright inaccurate. Cases are generated in the manner I presented, though publicly posted case requests. (As always, I'm open to being corrected by current or former Arbitrators.){{parabr}}CU and OS are not "decided" by voting. The Arbitration Committee can, and does, seek community input, which may take the form of !voting (note the "not" symbol which precedes "voting") but the final decision on giving out advanced rights remains in the hands of the Committee, not the community.{{parabr}}"functionaries are functionaries. 'nough said" explains nothing, answers nothing, and, worse, makes entirely no sense in the context of your earlier statement "Although not part of its official remit, ArbCom members will generally assist in matters that require persons identified to the WMF as part of the functionaries team."{{parabr}}Finally, your response was incorrect in one other respect: You are obviously unqualified to be an Arbitrator.  Thus, I must conclude that you were also wrong in saying "I am not trying to be a pain".{{parabr}}In light of this response, are you aware of the meaning of the expression "Giving the middle finger to the Wikipedia community"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A= So you think Jimbo is somehow comparable to an author of the US constitution, even though he did not write any of Wikipedias core policy, current principles or indeed anything else we still use, rather than how I look at it, which is that Jimbo/WMF is comparable to the queen/cabinet and arbcom to minsters, to whom power is devolved. (if you need to use the government as an analogy). And despite the fact you think ArbCom is immune from Jimbo's power I will note that Jimbo had no problem sacking EssJay. If the community suddenly didn't like ArbCom anymore, Jimbo could scrap it in an instant, and replace it with whatever people thought would be an improvement. Technically only paid employees are "employed" by the foundation, but there is no doubt that ArbCom is doing a role that would otherwise be costed by the WMF, not by the community, as ArbCom is slightly beyond the scope of the community itself, bridging the gap to the office. I think you will find abuse is illegal in the US and most other countries, and since all editors are individually liable for their criminal actions, it is their own countries law that would be chiefly relevant, not the location of the servers, which is relevant only to the liability of the WMF itself (expect is certain situations to detailed to mention here}. Perhaps you think abuse and harassment is a 'term of art' and not directly connected to the real world. I don't. On your argument on the CU/OS I will note that although technically not an election (since being changed from an election to definitely not an election), it certainly works like a vote, much like RfA. It is still for all practical purposes a vote. The so-called consensus model seems to break in places where anyone uses bolded comments, its a figure of speech I am using to show some democracy has crept in (even if you don't like that, it has happened, and I did not cause it). My comment on the functionaries is self explanatory, if you want to know what they are doing, go and ask them, but its secret so they probably won't tell you much detail. And finally, for the "middle finger", maybe you could find an image of Mussolini that includes the appropriate gesture? I finally remembered why you don't like me. And since you have already asked 5 questions and are about to to start repeating yourself even more, either ask another question or reply' on my talk page, don't keep commenting on what I have written just before, this is not a debate area.}}
 * 1) {{ACE Question
 * Q=Actually, this is not your page to control, the Electoral Commission holds sway here. But as it seems unlikely that you'll answer any additional questions from me (and since your answers to my other questions have been so unsatisfactory), I'll not ask you any others.{{parabr}}BTW, I never said that I don't like you: I don't know you well enough to know if I like you or not.  I'm simply appalled that someone with your lack of qualifications would ignore reasonable suggestions to step down from an election they know they have no chance of winning, a rather WP:POINTy action.{{parabr}}Please feel free to use the space below for whatever statement you'd like to make, if any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A= I would like to state for anyone that is interested that it was never my intention to run as a "competent" candidate as defined by the established administrators here. My qualifications, such as they are, is that I am good at arguing, good at finding a compromise, and a newer editor. It is my opinion that many people say ArbCom is "out of touch" with the general editor community, and as a perfectly average member of said community I could help to solve this perceived problem. I am not an admin and have no plans to be one, and that gives me a slightly different viewpoint on Wikipedia than the admins, former admins bureaucrats and functionaries that are standing. }}
 * Q=The WMF is a non-profit, sure, but they have multiple concerns, and have consistently shown that serving the en.wiki community is not always their highest priority among them.The Arbitration Committee does not work for Jimmy Wales any more than the President, Congress and Supreme Court of the United States "work for" James Madison or the other authors of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, less so, because Wales devolved some of his power and authority as founder onto the Arbitration Committee, and it would be practically impossible at this point for him to take it back without a major revolt from the community of en.wiki editors.  Nor could Wales unilaterally change an ArbCom finding without the same result, so, no, ArbCom does not "work for" either the WMF or Jimmy Wales any more then I do."Editor abuse" as a term of art does not generally consist of "abuse" as legally defined.  Also, please be aware that as their servers are located in the United States, American law is  generally controlling, not the law in any other jurisdiction (although individual editors in those jurisdictions may be subject to those laws).{{parabr}}Whether there is a "a significant amount of email and mailing list work" is irrelevant, your statement that cases are "primarily" generated through this medium is outright inaccurate. Cases are generated in the manner I presented, though publicly posted case requests. (As always, I'm open to being corrected by current or former Arbitrators.){{parabr}}CU and OS are not "decided" by voting. The Arbitration Committee can, and does, seek community input, which may take the form of !voting (note the "not" symbol which precedes "voting") but the final decision on giving out advanced rights remains in the hands of the Committee, not the community.{{parabr}}"functionaries are functionaries. 'nough said" explains nothing, answers nothing, and, worse, makes entirely no sense in the context of your earlier statement "Although not part of its official remit, ArbCom members will generally assist in matters that require persons identified to the WMF as part of the functionaries team."{{parabr}}Finally, your response was incorrect in one other respect: You are obviously unqualified to be an Arbitrator.  Thus, I must conclude that you were also wrong in saying "I am not trying to be a pain".{{parabr}}In light of this response, are you aware of the meaning of the expression "Giving the middle finger to the Wikipedia community"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A= So you think Jimbo is somehow comparable to an author of the US constitution, even though he did not write any of Wikipedias core policy, current principles or indeed anything else we still use, rather than how I look at it, which is that Jimbo/WMF is comparable to the queen/cabinet and arbcom to minsters, to whom power is devolved. (if you need to use the government as an analogy). And despite the fact you think ArbCom is immune from Jimbo's power I will note that Jimbo had no problem sacking EssJay. If the community suddenly didn't like ArbCom anymore, Jimbo could scrap it in an instant, and replace it with whatever people thought would be an improvement. Technically only paid employees are "employed" by the foundation, but there is no doubt that ArbCom is doing a role that would otherwise be costed by the WMF, not by the community, as ArbCom is slightly beyond the scope of the community itself, bridging the gap to the office. I think you will find abuse is illegal in the US and most other countries, and since all editors are individually liable for their criminal actions, it is their own countries law that would be chiefly relevant, not the location of the servers, which is relevant only to the liability of the WMF itself (expect is certain situations to detailed to mention here}. Perhaps you think abuse and harassment is a 'term of art' and not directly connected to the real world. I don't. On your argument on the CU/OS I will note that although technically not an election (since being changed from an election to definitely not an election), it certainly works like a vote, much like RfA. It is still for all practical purposes a vote. The so-called consensus model seems to break in places where anyone uses bolded comments, its a figure of speech I am using to show some democracy has crept in (even if you don't like that, it has happened, and I did not cause it). My comment on the functionaries is self explanatory, if you want to know what they are doing, go and ask them, but its secret so they probably won't tell you much detail. And finally, for the "middle finger", maybe you could find an image of Mussolini that includes the appropriate gesture? I finally remembered why you don't like me. And since you have already asked 5 questions and are about to to start repeating yourself even more, either ask another question or reply' on my talk page, don't keep commenting on what I have written just before, this is not a debate area.}}
 * 1) {{ACE Question
 * Q=Actually, this is not your page to control, the Electoral Commission holds sway here. But as it seems unlikely that you'll answer any additional questions from me (and since your answers to my other questions have been so unsatisfactory), I'll not ask you any others.{{parabr}}BTW, I never said that I don't like you: I don't know you well enough to know if I like you or not.  I'm simply appalled that someone with your lack of qualifications would ignore reasonable suggestions to step down from an election they know they have no chance of winning, a rather WP:POINTy action.{{parabr}}Please feel free to use the space below for whatever statement you'd like to make, if any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A= I would like to state for anyone that is interested that it was never my intention to run as a "competent" candidate as defined by the established administrators here. My qualifications, such as they are, is that I am good at arguing, good at finding a compromise, and a newer editor. It is my opinion that many people say ArbCom is "out of touch" with the general editor community, and as a perfectly average member of said community I could help to solve this perceived problem. I am not an admin and have no plans to be one, and that gives me a slightly different viewpoint on Wikipedia than the admins, former admins bureaucrats and functionaries that are standing. }}