Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/GorillaWarfare/Questions

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

Question from Carrite

 * Thanks for the answer. As I see it, those bans were indeed originally "intended to be used only in situations where someone has done something so egregious that they should never return," but are now being put in motion against inconvenient or annoying people. And I hope that as En-WP's elected representatives in charge of site discipline that you and your colleagues on the committee will figure out how to make that trend stop. I presume that WMF is in contact with you about this category of bans, one of the other arbs mentioned as much. I hope you'll pursue the BrillLyle matter, there is something really rotten in that particular case — and there is no appeal process. best, RfB /// Carrite (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are saying that the WMF bans "are now being put in motion against inconvenient or annoying people." Can you provide evidence for this claim?  I'm not sure this is the best place to discuss at length.  Maybe on your talk page or a noticeboard? I have no reason to believe this is true unless I see evidence. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm here to ask questions, not answer them. You have not been paying sufficient attention to the list of WMF bans is all I can say — which also holds true for the entire slate of candidates this year, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That you cannot provide evidence, and Gorilla Warfare (and other candidates responses to your question I looked at) saw no problem, suggests to me this is no more than an unfounded allegation. I haven't reviewed the list of the WMF bans.  I don't know where that is, since you have not provided it.  I would look to see if there even appeared to be a problem and might even agree with you, but you are not exactly being very helpful, so I see no reason to waste time looking into it.  I will trust that WMF is protecting the encyclopedia unless evidence is given to the contrary.  --David Tornheim (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That you cannot provide evidence, and Gorilla Warfare (and other candidates responses to your question I looked at) saw no problem, suggests to me this is no more than an unfounded allegation. I haven't reviewed the list of the WMF bans.  I don't know where that is, since you have not provided it.  I would look to see if there even appeared to be a problem and might even agree with you, but you are not exactly being very helpful, so I see no reason to waste time looking into it.  I will trust that WMF is protecting the encyclopedia unless evidence is given to the contrary.  --David Tornheim (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Question from Boing! said Zebedee

 * Oh, you have to get one of those photos scanned! I'm quite in awe of this guy myself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe when I go home for the holidays I can try to dig one up :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe when I go home for the holidays I can try to dig one up :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from

 * Thank you. feminist (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. feminist (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. I am rehashing most of my 2015 questions because I don't think that these issues have been resolved over the past three years. Enjoy!

Question from Liz

 * I'm surprised that ArbCom is using Google Groups. Have WMF Legal reviewed this to ensure that it complies with the commitments made with respect to the privacy and permitted uses of the information ArbCom handles? Sorry, not really a question for, though comments from anyone are welcome. HLHJ (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably a better question for WT:ACN since I'm not really sure. The Wikimedia Foundation controlled the previous ArbCom mailman setup, and would have had to be involved in setting up an @wikimedia.org email address, but whether the legal team specifically was involved I don't know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably a better question for WT:ACN since I'm not really sure. The Wikimedia Foundation controlled the previous ArbCom mailman setup, and would have had to be involved in setting up an @wikimedia.org email address, but whether the legal team specifically was involved I don't know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Question from

 * Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply, GW. Atsme ✍🏻📧 00:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply, GW. Atsme ✍🏻📧 00:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply, GW. Atsme ✍🏻📧 00:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Amanda

 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from
Thank you for your response. I've listened to what you said and voted to reduce the size of the Supreme Council to ease discussion. I was impressed that you got hold of a copy of Piotrus' paper (see next question) and agree that any "anyone-can-edit" v2.0 en.wp needs better representation of its writers. The arbitration branch has historically been recruited from the executive branch at en.wp (i.e. it's a bit of an  FOP lodge). The rulemakers / legislators here also seem quite frequently to be cops or others who hang around the doughnut shop. cf. WP:5P, WP:N, WP:V, WP:Harassment, WP:Linklove, etc.

In case you feel like answering more questions this weekend:

While this may be beyond ArbCom's purview/scope/remit/beat/etc., I'd be curious to read your thoughts on these matters. &mdash; 🍆 RosasHills t · c 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from



 * I mostly was surprised about the arbwiki finding, given that it's only really used if the mailing list has become unwieldy. Most of what happens on the arbwiki would otherwise happen on the (also private) mailing list. That said, I was not on the Arbitration Committee during the time period you studied, so it could be that things were done much differently then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from




Question from Gerda Arendt

 * Thank you. I agree with the attitude to not treat newbies with less respect than "regulars". - I was in a case that should have been declined (I think) but instead we spent months to arrive (similarly to Der Ring des Nibelungen) exactly where we had started: the arbs telling us "work it out on each article", which we had done and were sentenced for ;) - Then, in my one and hopefully only encounter with arbitration, I had not yet read the ultimate guide, now a legacy. Link on my answers collection (among the voter guides). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is quite the guide, and certainly a legacy. I was sad to hear that Shock Brigade Harvester Boris had passed—among his qualities, his username always caught my eye, and EdJohnston was kind enough to explain where it's from on his talk page. I also noticed he had the "Wikipedians who cannot be trout-slapped because they are already fish" category on his userpage, which I think I need to add to mine.
 * By the way, I looked at your guide and I think I was lucky enough to get the precious recognition way back when. I'm impressed you've kept it up for this long, and although we do not always agree I always like when I run across your awards on various user talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That, and that I don't even remember exactly where we disagreed enough for me to mark the award with a little star (it's for life, but at times I regret a bit, - I think it was about some AE for Eric Corbett?) I'll forgive (DGG the same). DYK that Boris was the first and for a while the only one to receive the prize from the cabal of the outcasts in br'erly style, for his, "have a laugh"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That, and that I don't even remember exactly where we disagreed enough for me to mark the award with a little star (it's for life, but at times I regret a bit, - I think it was about some AE for Eric Corbett?) I'll forgive (DGG the same). DYK that Boris was the first and for a while the only one to receive the prize from the cabal of the outcasts in br'erly style, for his, "have a laugh"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from User:Grillofrances








Question from User:Ryk72
Discretionary sanctions (DS) now cover more than 30 topic areas (per WP:DSTOPICS).

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Serialjoepsycho

 * 1) I guess it's a bit late to ask a question but if you wouldn't mind indulging one more... As an arbitrator here, in arbitrator years you are no longer a spring chicken, what's driving you to continue? There can be some quite ridiculous anywhere on wikipedia but it seems that a lot of it is gonna come and land in y'alls lap. What stops you from becoming disillusioned?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will say I do appreciate you couching that by saying "in arbitrator years" 👵! My four years on the ArbCom were both challenging and tiring, but they were also very rewarding. Frankly, I feel like I was good at it, and that the project was better off for having me on the Committee. I did get a little burnt out by the end of my second term, both from the demands of ArbCom and from changes in my professional life, so I decided to take a year off from the position. Since then I have settled into my role at work a bit more, and I have been able to return to editing Wikipedia with renewed energy (in fact I just realized I've made more edits this year than any other year.


 * I care deeply about Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement—I'm not sure I have any other hobbies I've kept up for 8+ years. Seeing the amazing work that's being done on this project by so many people makes me want to do everything I can to keep it running smoothly, and helps when I feel disillusioned. I've also become pretty good at letting the shit-slinging roll off my back. I think a lot of arbitrators experience increased amounts of harassment once they become arbitrators, but any increase in the really bad stuff due to my role wasn't particularly noticeable; it's something I've dealt with for quite sometime both before, during, and after my time on the ArbCom as a woman and a feminist who dares to exist on the internet, on Wikipedia, and in tech. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your time. It seems quite a well thought out response and very genuine. I appreciate that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Question from User:Ryoung122
Greetings,

I think Wikipedia is a great idea in theory, with policies such as NPOV, NOR, RS, etc. However, in practice we often see these policies ignored/underminded as POV-interest groups push to enforce their POV vision on their area/s of interest. Sometimes, in a dispute, one side will mis-use ArbCom proceedings (a sort of "witch hunt") to "eliminate" opposition to their POV-pushing, and then nothing is done, sometimes for years, to rectify the situation. Indeed, Wikipedia is in many ways a mirror of the realpolitick of the real world--in reality, not in theory--with an over-abundance of entrenched groups in the usual power structures. While I appreciate your bringing a pro-active approach in the area of gender equity, too often it seems that Wiki-disputes become a "survival of the powerful" as editors that are too nice, too naive, don't have enough time to deal with an issue, etc. get run off by those who are mean, nasty, sarcastic, undercutting, cunning, etc., leaving "Wiki:Own" violators cyber-squatting Wikipedia articles to their POV bias, rather than reflecting the Wikipedia ideal of NPOV, NOR, GNG, etc. As an ArbCom member, how do you think you can best effect a change in the mindset of the actual Wikipedia establishment to focus less on policy/rules alone and more on content/topic biases, including gender? I've recently seen cases where established, powerful editors make verbally abusive threats to others and get away with it. To save time, might ArbCom emphasize more an "ombudsman"-type "violator hotline" where people can call to report abuse? Ryoung 122 05:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I would certainly make an effort to discourage people from using ArbCom proceedings to eliminate their opposition. I think this is perhaps an area where the best thing the ArbCom can do is "lead by example", and carefully consider potential biases while also examining violations of policy. Because the ArbCom does not set policy and rarely gets involved with the vast majority of disputes onwiki, I don't think there's any particular way for the ArbCom to impose this kind of change on the community. As for the violator hotline suggestion, I'm not sure if you mean "call" literally—if so, that's impractical. There will be thirteen members on the Committee next year, and it's likely they will be clustered in one of a small set of time zones. They will have full-time jobs, schoolwork, or other real-life obligations that would certainly make manning a hotline impractical, not to mention that is not what they signed up for. If you did not mean "call" literally, that's sort of already what the ArbCom does—the ArbCom has an email address where people can report issues, and although they do not handle all of them directly, they point people in the right directions to get the help they need. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)