Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Barkeep49/Questions

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

 * One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. (This is not an answer to your comment, just info for fairness.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. (This is not an answer to your comment, just info for fairness.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. (This is not an answer to your comment, just info for fairness.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from BilledMammal

 * Addendum: I think from a real politik perspective Robert is right when he writes and this is something the committee should keep in mind especially once the U4C comes into existence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I think from a real politik perspective Robert is right when he writes and this is something the committee should keep in mind especially once the U4C comes into existence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung
Thank you very much for these answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from El_C

 * what do mean by standing up for real? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say that standing up to voter-me is on par with standing up to the WMF (though, I'm humbled), and my sense is that you'll be elected regardless of anything I might say. But unlike real world politics, when it comes to EN's relationship with the WMF, I might be more of an institutionalist than you realize — in the sense that I'm more immediately concerned with an erosion of independence, here, at EN by the WMF. Rather than looking to wage some kind of 'revolution' against them, which I'm not and is not a thing. But thank you for answering in detail. I'll perhaps leave you with the advise to not neglect the public sphere (i.e. at the very least to avoid the perception of reflexively defending the WMF). Because even if efforts in the private sphere might work to offset this, knowledge of it is inherently, well, more private. El_C 17:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Questions, one responsibility of the Electoral Commission is having "the final say at what constitutes a reasonable follow-up question". Unfortunately, after discussing this with the other electoral commissioners ( and ), we believe that your question exceeds the two-question limit. I know that you labelled the question as a follow-up to your first question—in our view, a "follow-up question" needs to be very closely related to the previous question or the answer given by the candidate to the previous question, and in this case, we believe that your third question here was not closely related enough. (Q1 was a broad question about accessibility to ArbCom while Q3 was a much more specific question about ArbCom's role in AE appeals.) Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks. El_C 02:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Questions, one responsibility of the Electoral Commission is having "the final say at what constitutes a reasonable follow-up question". Unfortunately, after discussing this with the other electoral commissioners ( and ), we believe that your question exceeds the two-question limit. I know that you labelled the question as a follow-up to your first question—in our view, a "follow-up question" needs to be very closely related to the previous question or the answer given by the candidate to the previous question, and in this case, we believe that your third question here was not closely related enough. (Q1 was a broad question about accessibility to ArbCom while Q3 was a much more specific question about ArbCom's role in AE appeals.) Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks. El_C 02:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks. El_C 02:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)