Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions

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

Questions from WBG

 * Which part of Vanamonde's comment:- Despite being active elsewhere, (you) declined to answer questions and pings on the talk page. If you're too busy, then you shouldn't have been closing the case. If the issue is one you consider trivial, then at least have the courtesy to say that. does seem wrong, in your opinion or that, you do not personally agree with? I also, absolutely refuse to believe that you were so busy that dropping a minimal message along the lines of Hey, we are aware of your concerns but FRAMGATE means that we can't devote sufficient time to this. was impossible. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Vanamonde suggested that we were "too busy", or felt it was "too trivial", or allowed for the fact that we had "discussed it elsewhere" (which you neglected to include in your quote). Indeed, I believe he felt there were problems with 3.2.4 (Icewhiz) at the proposed decision. I felt there had been sufficient discussion of that point - I had voted on that issue and had made a comment on that vote.
 * As for the minimal message, well, yes. There was this one, this one, this one and my personal apologies at the end WormTT(talk) 13:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you (plural) were apologizing for the multiple delays in completing various phases of the case but not for your failure to engage with others.
 * At any event, I bid you bye, lest this gets into the territory of pestering. For the sake of fairness, I must note that your conduct during Fram-case was quite impressive. Feel free to have the last word and best of luck:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you (plural) were apologizing for the multiple delays in completing various phases of the case but not for your failure to engage with others.
 * At any event, I bid you bye, lest this gets into the territory of pestering. For the sake of fairness, I must note that your conduct during Fram-case was quite impressive. Feel free to have the last word and best of luck:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At any event, I bid you bye, lest this gets into the territory of pestering. For the sake of fairness, I must note that your conduct during Fram-case was quite impressive. Feel free to have the last word and best of luck:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Nosebagbear

 * Thanks for the above
 * Thanks for the above

Questions from Newslinger

 * Having received responses from all candidates, I'd like to thank you for providing the best answers to my questions. I appreciate the time and effort you took to explain your reasoning, and your answers covered most of the related issues I was hoping everyone would consider. If you get re-elected, I look forward to seeing more of your insight in future cases. —  Newslinger  talk   09:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Glad to help WormTT(talk) 09:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Having received responses from all candidates, I'd like to thank you for providing the best answers to my questions. I appreciate the time and effort you took to explain your reasoning, and your answers covered most of the related issues I was hoping everyone would consider. If you get re-elected, I look forward to seeing more of your insight in future cases. —  Newslinger  talk   09:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Glad to help <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Q from SchroCat

 * Thanks very much for that full response, it's much appreciated. You're right, it always easier in hindsight, but unfortunately that's the only place where the lessons can be learned for the next time something similar happens. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that full response, it's much appreciated. You're right, it always easier in hindsight, but unfortunately that's the only place where the lessons can be learned for the next time something similar happens. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Vanamonde

 * To be clear, I'm not exculpating Icewhiz, whose conduct on the whole was egregiously battleground-ish. It was the wording and diffs in that finding, rather than the remedy, that I took issue with. In any case, thanks for the response, and I hope I'm wrong about it being used to restrict discussion eslewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The example that comes most readily to mind is someone deciding to challenge a collective crat decision about resysopping (or declining to resysop) at ARBCOM. Or alternatively, if a crat finds themselves before ARBCOM (yes, ARBCOM members are always going to have to judge their peers; but there's only a handful of bureaucrats, who have worked together for a long long time). But my discomfort has been more general, because I suspect this would matter in situations I cannot think of. I asked DeltaQuad this question at her RFB, and she stated that she felt the same way and wasn't planning to run for ARBCOM in the future; so it's not just me. But I appreciate that we may feel differently about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're not the only one to feel that way, certainly - and it's a not a new feeling. I ran my RfB whilst I was on Arbcom in 2014 and a significant portion of opposes were about separation of powers. I personally don't see that there needs to be a problem, due to the governance model that Wikipedia manages, but I'm also keenly aware that I need to not only maintain integrity between the roles, but be seen to maintain integrity. As for your examples - if I was part of a collective 'crat decision that was brought to Arbcom, I would recuse without hesitation - my own decision being reviewed is an obvious bright line there. I don't believe that a 'crat finding themselves before Arbcom is a reason to recuse, the 'crats are a much less close knit group than you might think. I could only name 6 off the top of my head, two of which have resigned recently, two begin with X,  and two I have met in real life.  Of course, as always, if you felt there was a reason to recuse on either side of the role, please do come to me and ask. I'd be happy to talk about it, and to my the best of my recollection I've always honored requests to recuse. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should go on to say that if there is a future need for separation of powers due to the change of the governance model (say, 'crats start doing something similar to Arbcom - per WP:BARC or something similar) I would recuse from all bureaucrat responsibilities on that new role whilst I sat on Arbcom. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're not the only one to feel that way, certainly - and it's a not a new feeling. I ran my RfB whilst I was on Arbcom in 2014 and a significant portion of opposes were about separation of powers. I personally don't see that there needs to be a problem, due to the governance model that Wikipedia manages, but I'm also keenly aware that I need to not only maintain integrity between the roles, but be seen to maintain integrity. As for your examples - if I was part of a collective 'crat decision that was brought to Arbcom, I would recuse without hesitation - my own decision being reviewed is an obvious bright line there. I don't believe that a 'crat finding themselves before Arbcom is a reason to recuse, the 'crats are a much less close knit group than you might think. I could only name 6 off the top of my head, two of which have resigned recently, two begin with X,  and two I have met in real life.  Of course, as always, if you felt there was a reason to recuse on either side of the role, please do come to me and ask. I'd be happy to talk about it, and to my the best of my recollection I've always honored requests to recuse. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should go on to say that if there is a future need for separation of powers due to the change of the governance model (say, 'crats start doing something similar to Arbcom - per WP:BARC or something similar) I would recuse from all bureaucrat responsibilities on that new role whilst I sat on Arbcom. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No question from Gerda

 * As said before, I support your candidacy, no questions asked. - I don't see much worrying over infoboxes in 2019, and am happy about that. Two RfCs and a farce, - nothing to worry about, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As said before, I support your candidacy, no questions asked. - I don't see much worrying over infoboxes in 2019, and am happy about that. Two RfCs and a farce, - nothing to worry about, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Peacemaker67

 * I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , certainly thanks for the feedback, which I will keep in mind for future cases. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , certainly thanks for the feedback, which I will keep in mind for future cases. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

 * Thank you, Dave. —t /// Carrite (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dave. —t /// Carrite (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dave. —t /// Carrite (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from 28bytes
Last year around this time I emailed the committee with concerns that a former administrator (and currently banned sockmaster) was continuing to edit with a particular account. Since then, the account has voted in an ArbCom election, participated in RfAs, and even offered !votes in community ban discussions about other editors. I've since been told the committee has somewhat of a "let sleeping dogs lie" philosophy regarding such things if the account in question appears to be editing productively and not causing disruption. With that in mind:



Question from Grillofrances
Thanks for asking my 13 questions which were later deleted. I have now some questions how ArbCom works. Both Arbitration Committee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee don't contain too much info.
 * Hi Grillofrances. Most of the information you are looking for is in WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, but I'm happy to answer a few questions. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)