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

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

Questions from Gerda Arendt

 * You answered, I think, don't waste time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. I was just settling down to put together a response this morning, so that was timely! It's a nice morning here in Southampton, so I think we'll go for a walk in the woods instead! Thanks Gerda. SilkTork (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - speaking to people is the best approach, I think (2015). What would you have told me (back to my question "would you also have taken me to AE?, and you said you would have spoken to me about it)? I made a third edit in an infobox discussion, yes, but it wasn't about infoboxes, simply defending my integrity, - my POV ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha. I can't say now what I would have said then. It's like there are two lovers who briefly met and parted, and their lives went separate ways such that the love changed. They meet again as old people and one says: I would have proposed to you. And the other says: What would you have said? It's a different moment, a different time. What is said now would not be what was said back then. . But I would have urged you to take more care not to put yourself in harm's way. SilkTork (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Love it ;) - Harm certainly came, but in the end not for me. (And then I appealed, which I had been too proud to do until then: I had enough of that kind of wasted time.) - Perhaps a simple fact check then, my first arb cand question ever: Please describe what happens in ." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Superficially what happens is that Pigsonthewing moves basic information data from a collapsed box at the bottom of the article, to an uncollapsed box in a more prominent, visible (and conventional) position at the top of the page. The history shows progressive article development including the creation of an info box, and then Nikkimaria arrives with a view that basic information data should not be displayed prominently, and both before and after that edit there is some adjusting of how and where that basic information data should be placed. There is a discussion on the talkpage which accompanies the edits around the positioning and visibility of the basic data in the info box, and Nikkimaria gives her views on infoboxes. That Nikkimaria had differing views to yourself and Pigsonthewing regarding infoboxes is acceptable, and the appropriate way to deal with such differences is to discuss and negotiate. However, what was happening around that time is that the disagreement was spilling over into an "Infobox War" on a number of articles, such that an ArbCom case was opened. Ny views on Nikkimaria's behaviour were given at the time: and - I was uncomfortable with the way someone with her knowledge, intelligence, and experience was behaving, as I felt she was personalising this issue, and following you and Pigs around in order that her views on infoboxes should prevail. I was also unhappy with Pigsonthewing, and gave my views on his behaviour: . These were not majority views, and Nikkimaria was not desysopped, and Pigsonthewing was not site-banned. Arising from that case your involvement in the Infoboxes War was restricted, and I supported that restriction with this comment: . The case was not about infoboxes, even though it was termed that, it was about the behaviour of those prominent in the disagreement over the use and placement of infoboxes. The disagreement could have been over the naming of cats or if we need to cite that the sky is blue. Whatever. It was the way some people behaved that was the issue. While I think your behaviour on that article was appropriate - you sought consensus, and edited in an attempt to accommodate Nikkimaria's concerns, the evidence brought to the case was that later you were systematically inserting infoboxes without discussion, knowing that this would be contentious: . So restricting your involvement in infoboxes would cease the aggravation. I didn't see you as a bad person, just as someone caught up in the heat of the moment, and that you needed assistance in breaking free of the conflict. Like avoiding going into pubs with someone who is trying to cut down on their drinking. Later, when the drinking is under control, you can return together to favourite taverns and inns.  SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a good observation of what happened on that article which I created. - I will ignore the rest. I learned the hard way that every talk about infoboxes is a waste of time. I create them, and when they are reverted, I usually don't even bother to argue, only . Infoboxes for Kafka stories have never been contentious, and Kafka came to mind all the time during the socalled infoboxes case ;) - I am quite proud of my modest contributions to that article. - Last question: what do think about, recently? You will remember her name from the infoboxes case, and if she nominated herself for arb I would vote for her without a question. Good luck for yours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She was once against infoboxes, and now she is for them. When they emerged I didn't like them, and I recall raising a few questions about them, considering if they were best placed at the top of the main body rather than in the lead. Quite quickly I could see that they were popular, so I accepted them. Such is the Wiki-way. We start something, or change something, and consensus emerges as to if it's OK to to continue. Sometimes people don't reach for consensus, they assert their views strongly possibly aggressively and disruptively, and the community attempts to reach a compromise, but fails, so a case arrives at ArbCom. The case isn't about the issue, but about the manner in which the issue is being dealt. In the infoboxcase, ArbCom wasn't being asked if infoboxes are right or wrong, or where or how they should be placed, it was being asked to look into the behaviour of those who were fighting over the boxes. If a case is brought to ArbCom in which Committee members hold strong opinions about either the people involved or the issues being discussed, then they should recuse. In ArbCom elections people will ask questions to see where a candidate stands on a particular issue, or where their sympathies lie. The most popular one concerns civility, as that has been a hot potato for years. People want to know if a candidate will come down hard on those who say cunt, or support their right to free speech, or any of the colours of the rainbow in between. You can put me down as the colours of the rainbow. And if a case came up in which I had views which were black or white, I would recuse.
 * I have enjoyed your questions Gerda. Sometimes it's been like dancing with smoke trying to understand your intentions, but you've been polite, considerate, and imaginative. I sense you hold a resentment toward me dating back to the infobox case, and that you will be opposing me in the election. No worries. Since I was asked to nominate myself there have been a goodly number of respectable users who have put their names down, and quite possibly the largest number of ex-Committee members, such that the community will have to make an effort to appoint someone fresh, so I feel comfortable that the Committee will move forward safely with or without me. Personally speaking, I'd prefer to be on the Committee. I actually enjoy the sense of duty and of helping out. So if I don't get back on this year, I'll try again next. Thanks again! SilkTork (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like "enjoyed" and "dancing". I try to not hold grudges, and to be as objective as I can, and to see the other's side also, but I confess that the concert I listened to the night I thought my friend would by banned is on my mind like yesterday. I wrote a DYK about it: ... that rehearsing Dvořák's Eighth Symphony, a conductor said: "Gentlemen, in Bohemia the trumpets never call to battle – they always call to the dance!"?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts, with today's flower! Back to the first question I believe that declining a cases may often be the best choice. If I was into user boxes, I'd make one for "This user survived the infoboxes case which should have been declined". But now the box for Kafka is my only one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She was once against infoboxes, and now she is for them. When they emerged I didn't like them, and I recall raising a few questions about them, considering if they were best placed at the top of the main body rather than in the lead. Quite quickly I could see that they were popular, so I accepted them. Such is the Wiki-way. We start something, or change something, and consensus emerges as to if it's OK to to continue. Sometimes people don't reach for consensus, they assert their views strongly possibly aggressively and disruptively, and the community attempts to reach a compromise, but fails, so a case arrives at ArbCom. The case isn't about the issue, but about the manner in which the issue is being dealt. In the infoboxcase, ArbCom wasn't being asked if infoboxes are right or wrong, or where or how they should be placed, it was being asked to look into the behaviour of those who were fighting over the boxes. If a case is brought to ArbCom in which Committee members hold strong opinions about either the people involved or the issues being discussed, then they should recuse. In ArbCom elections people will ask questions to see where a candidate stands on a particular issue, or where their sympathies lie. The most popular one concerns civility, as that has been a hot potato for years. People want to know if a candidate will come down hard on those who say cunt, or support their right to free speech, or any of the colours of the rainbow in between. You can put me down as the colours of the rainbow. And if a case came up in which I had views which were black or white, I would recuse.
 * I have enjoyed your questions Gerda. Sometimes it's been like dancing with smoke trying to understand your intentions, but you've been polite, considerate, and imaginative. I sense you hold a resentment toward me dating back to the infobox case, and that you will be opposing me in the election. No worries. Since I was asked to nominate myself there have been a goodly number of respectable users who have put their names down, and quite possibly the largest number of ex-Committee members, such that the community will have to make an effort to appoint someone fresh, so I feel comfortable that the Committee will move forward safely with or without me. Personally speaking, I'd prefer to be on the Committee. I actually enjoy the sense of duty and of helping out. So if I don't get back on this year, I'll try again next. Thanks again! SilkTork (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like "enjoyed" and "dancing". I try to not hold grudges, and to be as objective as I can, and to see the other's side also, but I confess that the concert I listened to the night I thought my friend would by banned is on my mind like yesterday. I wrote a DYK about it: ... that rehearsing Dvořák's Eighth Symphony, a conductor said: "Gentlemen, in Bohemia the trumpets never call to battle – they always call to the dance!"?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts, with today's flower! Back to the first question I believe that declining a cases may often be the best choice. If I was into user boxes, I'd make one for "This user survived the infoboxes case which should have been declined". But now the box for Kafka is my only one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Alex Shih

 * Thank you for your answer, . The first part of my question is indeed focused on occasional discussions on the mailing list which may not have been confidential in nature. As a follow up if I may, could I ask that in accordance to your stance in favour of transparency, would you speak against (if you were appointed) for instance, non-confidential matters being discussed privately instead of on Wikipedia when there is an active case discussion that is taking place?In regards to the second part of this question, I think I may have been unclear. I am referring strictly to private discussions on the mailing list. As the rest of the community cannot access nor know what kind of discussions take places on these mailing lists, my question is that, do you think as a elected member of the committee, that there should be a minimal standard on what consist of appropriate behaviour on these mailing lists, comparable to what is to be expected when discussing publicly on Wikipedia? Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer again. To clarify, I am talking about in general, whenever there is concern over someone, whether it is from the community or occasionally from other venues. My experience is that occasionally a discussion can be had for weeks/months over concern for a particular editor and conclusions being made without the editor being notified until the very late stage. I guess I am trying to ask that if elected again, would you promote the idea of getting "their side of the story" first before reaching to a conclusion in a private mailing list? Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer again. To clarify, I am talking about in general, whenever there is concern over someone, whether it is from the community or occasionally from other venues. My experience is that occasionally a discussion can be had for weeks/months over concern for a particular editor and conclusions being made without the editor being notified until the very late stage. I guess I am trying to ask that if elected again, would you promote the idea of getting "their side of the story" first before reaching to a conclusion in a private mailing list? Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer again. To clarify, I am talking about in general, whenever there is concern over someone, whether it is from the community or occasionally from other venues. My experience is that occasionally a discussion can be had for weeks/months over concern for a particular editor and conclusions being made without the editor being notified until the very late stage. I guess I am trying to ask that if elected again, would you promote the idea of getting "their side of the story" first before reaching to a conclusion in a private mailing list? Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer again. To clarify, I am talking about in general, whenever there is concern over someone, whether it is from the community or occasionally from other venues. My experience is that occasionally a discussion can be had for weeks/months over concern for a particular editor and conclusions being made without the editor being notified until the very late stage. I guess I am trying to ask that if elected again, would you promote the idea of getting "their side of the story" first before reaching to a conclusion in a private mailing list? Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

 * 1)    You seem to have missed my messages about my wife having melanomas, two of which were massive and life threatening, and the fact that one person on my talk page apparently even wished her to die. (I did not even mention my own radiation treatments.)  A thousand words defending your own actions do not impress anyone much at all. By the way, feel free to decry my specific edits if you wish, but anyone impugning my wife's medical history is quite outside normal behaviour.   For fun, I think you should look at some of the copyright violations pages.    Collect (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)    You seem to have missed my messages about my wife having melanomas, two of which were massive and life threatening, and the fact that one person on my talk page apparently even wished her to die. (I did not even mention my own radiation treatments.)  A thousand words defending your own actions do not impress anyone much at all. By the way, feel free to decry my specific edits if you wish, but anyone impugning my wife's medical history is quite outside normal behaviour.   For fun, I think you should look at some of the copyright violations pages.    Collect (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)    You seem to have missed my messages about my wife having melanomas, two of which were massive and life threatening, and the fact that one person on my talk page apparently even wished her to die. (I did not even mention my own radiation treatments.)  A thousand words defending your own actions do not impress anyone much at all. By the way, feel free to decry my specific edits if you wish, but anyone impugning my wife's medical history is quite outside normal behaviour.   For fun, I think you should look at some of the copyright violations pages.    Collect (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Banedon






Question from



 * Hi, I am not seeing a response to the second part re misrepresentations. To clarify, I see a gross misrepresentation as tantamount to lying with an intent to malign. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)



Questions from




Question from Carrite




Question from

 * Thanks. Strickland would be a great example. More broadly (and feel free not to answer this part), I would like your views on how Wikipedia editors can better communicate its WP:Processes to people not involved with Wikipedia, including article subjects, the press, and readers in general. feminist (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Strickland would be a great example. More broadly (and feel free not to answer this part), I would like your views on how Wikipedia editors can better communicate its WP:Processes to people not involved with Wikipedia, including article subjects, the press, and readers in general. feminist (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your elaboration. feminist (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your elaboration. feminist (talk) 13:22, 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

 * Thank you for volunteering to participate on ArbCom and for your thoughtful response, SilkTork. Atsme ✍🏻📧 16:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for volunteering to participate on ArbCom and for your thoughtful response, SilkTork. Atsme ✍🏻📧 16:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for volunteering to participate on ArbCom and for your thoughtful response, SilkTork. Atsme ✍🏻📧 16:15, 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 User:Smallbones

 * SLavender quotes "The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI." Can you guess a few probable cases, where this is a plausible scenario i.e. an user has a COI but is not required to disclose it? &#x222F; WBG converse 11:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are privacy concerns, it would be inappropriate for us to demand that a user declare publicly their COI. Yet we do. "If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and where ever you discuss the topic." (WP:DISCLOSE). The way round that is for a user to create an alternative account which they only use for editing that topic, and to notify ArbCom of what they are doing. This alternative account would then carry the public declaration of COI, though it wouldn't link back to the user's other account. This is permissible under our policies, though isn't ideal. SilkTork (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * SLavender quotes "The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI." Can you guess a few probable cases, where this is a plausible scenario i.e. an user has a COI but is not required to disclose it? &#x222F; WBG converse 11:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are privacy concerns, it would be inappropriate for us to demand that a user declare publicly their COI. Yet we do. "If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and where ever you discuss the topic." (WP:DISCLOSE). The way round that is for a user to create an alternative account which they only use for editing that topic, and to notify ArbCom of what they are doing. This alternative account would then carry the public declaration of COI, though it wouldn't link back to the user's other account. This is permissible under our policies, though isn't ideal. SilkTork (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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.' 00:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)