Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/BDD/Questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

Questions from George Ho

2. The WMF has proposed the Universal Code of Conduct for a long while. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   I welcome discussion on any steps to fight wiki-harassment, and agree that we've collectively missed out on a lot of good contributors and contributions because of it. Now, will the UCoC eliminate that? Of course not, but any progress on that front is to be applauded. I don't dismiss the concerns of those who feel such a code of conduct is unattainable. I agree that less is probably more here—try to capture what's really universal, and minimize imposition of values on any wiki. Much will hinge on what the final product looks like, though from what I can see now, the process seems appropriately transparent. It's hard for me at this point to imagine it ending in something disastrous. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Which ArbCom cases have affected you the most personally as a Wikipedian, even when you agree or disagree with the decisions made, and why?

   Good question! I'm not sure I'll have a very satisfying answer, though. I haven't been the subject of any cases myself. Since I have to reach a bit, I'd say Article titles and capitalisation. Given my experience with RM and RfD, I know how these seemingly trivial considerations can nevertheless be especially animating. I've certainly had strong opinions about them myself, though some have mellowed with time. Wikipedia runs on passion, but these sort of disputes really reflect poorly on us. I think the average reader would understand a heated battled over, say, politics and religion. Arguing over minutiae, though, makes us all look like angry nerds. Again, I've been one myself (and I don't mean to cast aspersions on any of the individuals involved in a case from over 8 years ago), but seeing something like that escalated to ArbCom gives me a sense of perspective that much of this kind of squabbling is far afield from our core mission of giving free, unbiased information to the world. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda

2. In 2013, we had
   WP:ARBINFOBOX. In 2018, Voceditenore commented this
   . Would you agree?

   I agree with the core findings of the case, and given my profession, it will likely come as no surprise that I value good metadata. By "core findings", I mean the principles and the first two under "Findings of fact". I'm not sure if you wanted an answer about the case itself, but there you go. Regarding Voceditenore's comment, I don't have enough information to say. I haven't encountered such disputes recently, though I'm also not active in the area of composers. I would like to think the sentiment "the general attitude from both perspectives seems to have settled on live and let live" is accurate, though I would not be shocked if it weren't. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from

Calidum

2. The recent anti-harassment RFC was closed with several findings related to "unblockable" users. Do you agree with those findings and how would you address them?

   I do agree with the findings as a whole, though I would hope that more even-handed enforcement would head off further problems. I hate to agree with something as broad as "Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent" and "Blocks should be handed out more frequently", but yes, we should not be hesitant to apply sanctions when they're warranted, especially not because the offender has a lot of friends or is seen as "unblockable". Maybe it's easier to cite

   WP:NOBIGDEAL when you're actually an admin, but admins can't be above the law. All the more important, then, for ArbCom to step in, if there aren't other reasonable fora for dispute resolution. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Questions from Kudpung

I'm asking all candidates the same questions.

2. The Arbitration Committee is not a court of law, but it has often been suggested that it is 'judge, jury, and executioner'. I'm not asking you to comment on that, but my related question is: Should the Committee base its Findings of Fact and Proposed Remedy(ies) purely on the prima facie evidence presented by the complainant(s), or should its members have a duty to thoroughly investigate the validity, accuracy, and/or veracity of those complaints? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think it has to be that black and white. We put a lot of responsibility on arbitrators' shoulders. In that regard, I am more inclined to say they should stick with evidence as presented. But I am generally of the opinion—as I suspect many librarians and Wikipedians are—that more knowledge is a good thing, setting aside some obvious violations such as doxing. I can't fault any arbitrator for wanting to be thorough. Ideally, the evidence presented should be enough, and I would not want to add a large investigative component to the arbitrator's docket, but I certainly wouldn't discourage such efforts either. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Wikipedia's drama board at
   WP:ANI is open to comment by any and all users. This could possibly affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even reveal a consensus that might not always be the most equitable. On Arbcom cases participation (sometimes throw-away comments) from uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also colour the objectivity of members of the Committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. My question is: In your opinion, how valid is such participation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   (ping) Some clarification may be helpful, because I think I understand the overall thrust of this question, but some of the wording confused me. (Was ANI brought up by way of analogy, for example, or are you asking about participation both there and in ArbCom cases?) My professional and Wikipedian principles make me bristle at the idea of telling anyone acting in good faith that they need to remain silent. But no one's interests are really served if discussion devolves into a peanut gallery. This ties in with your previous question—how do we account for arbitrators learning information, or seeing opinions, outside of the defined structure of a case? I don't think we really can. For better or worse, I think we need to trust arbitrators' judgment and demeanor, that they'll hold the facts foremost and not give weight to off-handed comments. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BDD: Thank you for your answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Newslinger

2. Under what circumstances would a dispute over the use of
   conduct dispute
   ?

   This is hard to answer without getting tautological! If the editor promoting use of an unreliable source is doing so in good faith, it's just a matter of conveying the unreliability of the source. If it's the type of source listed at NOTRELIABLE or

   WP:RSPSRC, that should be straightforward. To quote RUCD, "If there would be no substantive dispute if the editor was not behaving in a disruptive or unprofessional way, then it is a conduct dispute." The "disruptive or unprofessional" conduct here would be insisting on a source's reliability despite it being proscribed (by form or specific source). That leaves some gray area, perhaps, which I would not label a conduct dispute. Absent specific guidance, such good-faith disagreements are still content disputes. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. How do you feel about
   WP:NPOV? A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I am often skeptical of statements such as "if you do nothing, you support [blank]". Even in the most diametrically opposed issues, there can be real differences between pro-A and anti-B. I also see a big difference between this sort of statement and NPOV: none of these statements should affect our ability to describe things neutrally. That said, it's certainly worth being sparing with such statements. If Wikipedia is seen as constantly supporting any cause, no matter how worthy, there's a danger of perceived bias. But ultimately, this is pretty simple: we are judged by our actions (which, admittedly, are usually words here :) ). The most important thing is to continue to model excellence in our articles, we're doing it right. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. There is at least a perception of left-wing bias on Wikipedia, both regarding content and internally (for context see [1]. One of the examples given is that for matters relating to Donald Trump, the 2016 US election and Brett Kavanaugh, editors making broadly "pro-Trump" edits were disciplined 6 times more than those making broadly "anti-Trump" edits, but this is not to say this was or wasn't justified). Do you believe this perception to be true, and whether you believe it is true or not, what, if anything, should be done to address it? A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   This is difficult because it's really something Wikipedia itself is "downstream" of. That is to say, people are going to have and push these views regardless, so we have to talk about mitigation, rather than hoping to solve the problem entirely. I don't believe there's much truth to the alleged left-wing bias. I think we do an excellent job cutting through the partisan fog on contentious issues. To the extent there's a problem, it's another downstream one: in the US, at least, the political right has proven much more willing to construct bubbles of "alternative facts" and reject impartial findings. The current election disputes are an excellent example of this. While the political left is not immune to this, it's nowhere near a 50/50 phenomenon, so we don't want to fall into the trap of false balance. Again, I think we do very well in this regard. Discipline should not contingent on an editor's political views, of course, but I don't think the cited discrepancy is necessarily evidence of that. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AmandaNP

2. Each and every year issues of systemic oppression become louder and louder in society. In 3 major countries that our contributors come from have been dealing with increasing public pressure to address such issues. (US: [2], UK: [3], Canada: [4] [5]) Given this and the increased political attention this is getting, it's bound to be a dispute that spills into many different sectors of Wikipedia (race, class, gender, sexuality, disability, etc.). I would argue that cases where these issues could pop-up already have been litigated through previous committees (
   GamerGate
   ) and will continue to do so. My question is, as an Arbitrator, do you think you have a role in preventing systemic oppression from happening on Wikipedia, and what would that role look like?

   You might find some of my answers above helpful, though I'll try to give you a self-contained one here that won't be too redundant. As you noted, these disputes aren't new, so while I don't disagree that these issues have become more salient in society, I don't know how much that directly translates to Wikipedia disputes. Yes, ArbCom has a role in combating systemic oppression. It must, or else we effectively resign ourselves to doing nothing, to looking at

   WP:BIAS and saying "no problem!" What this role would look like would depend heavily on the sort of cases brought, of course, but I think it's crucial for arbitrators to consider, at every stage in the lifecycle of a case, broader implications. Not just what a case means for the involved parties, but what sort of message it conveys to the whole Wikipedia community, and outside observers. What will we tolerate? What do we want our base of editors to look like compared to our global readership? Besides being the right thing to do, addressing systemic bias is good for the overall health, trustworthiness, and longevity of Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. The role of CheckUser and Oversight are given to every arbitrator on request. CheckUser regularly requires experience to interpret results. Given you have a vote in how proceedings involving the overturning of checkuser blocks, the enforcement of the CU/OS policies including the privacy policy, and the appointment of new functionaries, how does your experience show that you can place independent thought into such decisions? I'm not asking about how you defer to others as that is not showing independent discretion and thought. (Cases relevant: {{checkuserblock-account}} blocks where the behavior doesn't match but technical evidence does, accusations of violations of the privacy policies by two former functionaries, and the lack of appropriate staffing of venues - OTRS oversight, checkuser and paid editing queues, ACC CheckUser queue, and IRC Checkuser and oversight requests)

   (ping) At the risk of trampling on an attempt to be discreet, could you link to the sort of case you mean? I'm not really grokking the part of your question that's in parentheses. Regardless, I have to say I will take a conservative approach to the use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, having not had them before. I would hope that any editor gaining those tools would say the same. I have no doubt that it's within my abilities to use them competently, but obviously, they're serious business. And by "independent thought into such decisions", do you mean independent from CheckUser evidence, from other arbitrators, from personal feelings about parties involved in a case...? I would bring the same temperament and judgment that I do to admin work, but again, I think I'm missing something in the question. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for elaborating on your talk page. I'll stand by what I've previously written here, and the following for your clarifying questions:

1. If CheckUser were perfect, we'd hardly need functionaries, and we can expect the committed vandals will be looking for ways to evade detection. Yes, I believe I will be able to consider such factors.
2. AGF has its limits, and issues probably won't come before ArbCom if there hasn't been any bad faith whatsoever. It behooves arbitrators to think critically. To speak to CheckUser specifically: as a candidate, it's great to be able to emphasize my strengths, but I need to be honest about my shortcomings as well. We're not electing a prom king—the responsibilities are heavy. Due to my lack of experience with CU/OS tools, I do think I will go with the flow among fellow arbitrators initially. That doesn't mean I'll stay silent if I think they're egregiously wrong, but there's a high chance I would just be missing something. I would do this because of how seriously I take the role, and for the same reason, I would endeavor to build up experience in the area so I could be more of an independent actor there. To echo what I said on an unrelated question, I don't think deferring to fellow administrators and exercising independent thought is necessarily a black and white matter. Perhaps more of a spectrum—sometimes good judgment means recognizing when someone else is already right, or knows better than you.
3. Here my lack of experience with CheckUser may be a plus, because I don't have many preconceived notions about what regular venues are. Though I'm happy more editors have stepped up, I decided to run for ArbCom this year because I only saw a few candidates before I declared, and like many, I've been concerned with declining RfA numbers. Still, I genuinely don't think we lack for competent, motivated editors who are willing to step up in these roles. Even considering the higher bar for functionaries, I'd like to see us make an effort to address burnout by recruiting new editors.

I hope this helps, and again, I appreciate your explanation and the chance to answer further. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IP user 2600:1004:*

2. A7V2's question above linked to this article, and asked whether ArbCom candidates agree with the perception that Arbitration Enforcement has a left-wing bias. Expanding upon that question, another argument made by the article is that when a controversial topic comes to be dominated by editors with single viewpoint, this creates a situation where violations of BLP policy or other content policies may be overlooked for months or years if the violations are favorable to the dominant viewpoint, because editors are less likely to fix policy violations that support a viewpoint they agree with. (See the section of the article titled, "How administrative bias affects articles".) Do you consider this tendency to be a problem, and if so, what role (if any) should ArbCom have in addressing it?

   The example in that article is certainly concerning, yes. I'm not sure how germane it is to admin behavior specifically, despite the heading. The diff it links to shows the actions of an editor who has never been an admin. This says more about

   WP:V and the use of print sources, IMO, but it is nevertheless shameful that we let an apparent fabrication like that stand for as long as it did. I would agree with the article that regardless of viewpoint, editors are more motivated to challenge material they disagree with, and protect material they agree with—I think that's inescapable in a volunteer-run project. Hopefully these sorts of disputes can be resolved before escalation to ArbCom. If they do make it to that point, as I expressed in a previous answer, it's all the more important for ArbCom to ensure that admins aren't abusing their authority. --BDD (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Questions from Atsme

2. Adminstrators who oversee DS-AE in highly controversial areas are authorized by ArbCom to act unilaterally using their sole discretion, and that has raised some justifiable concerns because indef t-bans have been imposed in an ambush-style action at a single admin's sole discretion at the start of a case, be it ARCA or ANI. AE actions cannot be overturned by another admin; therefore, doing so at the start of a case denies the accused the opportunity to defend themselves, but assures the acting admin (who may or may not knowingly be prejudiced) that the editor will be indef t-banned without risking a lesser action being imposed by the community at ANI, or by arbitrators at ARCA. Such an action actually gives a single admin more authority than ArbCom itself which must act as a committee. Do you consider such an AE action under those circumstances I described to be an out-of-process action worthy of desysopping, or simply unconventional but worthy of your continued support if you became an arbitrator?

   It's not really an out-of-process action though, is it? But I think that speaks to the heart of your question, namely, whether such a process is wise. I've considered the evidence you helpfully provided in the following question. I'm very reluctant to just scrap the whole thing, because I don't want to ignore the possibility that there could be cases that truly call for that level of urgency. However, you fairly describe reasons why admins should be extremely judicious in its use. If I were on ArbCom and there were a discussion about ending the practice, I would be open to it, and would hope there would be a chance to analyze other cases of its use. To be specific, any process where a single editor exercises un-reviewable power had really better be truly clear-cut. I can't think of many cases where a second opinion wouldn't be salutary. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. There have been some issues involving long term surveillance/analysis of veteran editors by the same few admins who oversee controversial topic areas. Some concern has also been expressed regarding the modification of DS by a single administrator to custom-fit the surveilled/analyzed behaviors of targeted editors. Do you think such activity makes the admin involved and possibly even prejudiced against the targeted editor(s)? To add a bit more clarity regarding my questions I've provided a few diffs for you to ponder: DGG stated in this diff: As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be. DGG also expressed concern over "admin involvement" in this diff, and further explains in this diff. And to credit of Awilley for recognizing potential involvement, there is this diff.

   These diffs highlight a kind of inherent meta-problem with admin work, or any sort of enforcement mechanism across the project. We want admins to be uninvolved and dish out impartial judgment, but good judgment requires investigation and consideration of evidence. That's very likely to lead to opinions—how much of that do we accept as unavoidable, and when is a threshold crossed such that an admin needs to step back and consider themselves involved? DGG's statement strikes me as hyperbolic but not wrong. Ideally, we wouldn't put too much on the shoulders of DS and have ArbCom regulate directly, but of course, ArbCom can't be everywhere or do everything. The ambiguity can be unsatisfying, but ultimately, we have to rely on some core principles. In no particular order: (1) enforcement should be impartial; (2) if in doubt, assume you're involved; (3) actions backed by multiple admins or ArbCom are stronger than those from a single admin. I hope this helps, and welcome follow-ups or requests for clarification. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Thank you - appreciate the thought you put into it. Atsme 💬 📧 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from StraussInTheHouse

While

2. In the first three months of this year, three administrators were desysopped following three separate cases (1, 2, 3). Did ArbCom decide each of these cases correctly and why?

   Please take all of these answers with a grain of salt, because I did not follow any of these cases, and am just now attempting to give you my assessment after reading up on them. I had initially written up brief, individual comments on each case, but I think it might be better to offer general observations: yes, I think these were all correctly decided. As I've alluded to elsewhere on this page, ArbCom oversight of admins is crucial, due to the dearth of other options. Admins need to know when to "tag out" and let another handle issues that are getting under their skin or causing conduct unbecoming of an administrator. We can and should have a higher bar for admins, and not tolerate

   WP:IDHT or personal attacks. Adminship is not a license to be nasty because you do good work too. I say all this as an admin myself. Happy to give further answers if desired. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Last year, there was a substantial dispute regarding the
   dealt with by the WMF and was ArbCom's response to the WMF
   reasonable?

   Unlike the above cases, I did follow this one for the most part (there was, of course, a lot to digest). Conduct issues should not be handled by the WMF, outside of the sort of situations you cite. For all the rigmarole, I am satisfied with ArbCom's ultimate response and the recognition that ArbCom, not the WMF, should be the ultimate authority on content disputes. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Fæ

Question from Mrwoogi010

2. Since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can sometimes be seen as pretty confusing, especially for new members, how do you plan on approaching problems in which a new editor is involved in a case with the Arbitration Committee? _Mrwoogi010^✉ 20:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Something has gone wrong if there's an ArbCom case, and something has gone really wrong if a new editor makes it there. We'd either be talking about a collective failure to welcome that person and issue gentle corrections as needed, or such egregious misconduct that for whatever reason can't be stopped by the usual tools. Maybe this is true about any Wikipedia dispute, but especially here: an ounce of prevention is worth at least a pound of cure. ArbCom itself is hardly a welcoming or intuitive process for a new editor to grasp, but I don't know how much we can really do about that without compromising its effectiveness. I've shown a willingness in the past to mentor new editors. While it really wouldn't be appropriate for an arbitrator to also try to shepherd a new editor through the process of a case, I think this will give me an eye for fairness in ensuring someone doesn't just get steamrolled because they don't know their way around. But again, something has gone very wrong if it comes to that. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from The Land

2. D you support the proposed statement in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review of Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns? Regards, The Land (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, excluding obvious trolling (e.g., attack helicopter). AGF applies, of course, which that UCoC section speaks to. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Thank you for answering a question from George Ho about regarding the WMF's Draft Universal Code of Conduct. Do you believe the WMF has followed an appropriate process to develop this document? If this or something similar is adopted by the WMF, then what do you believe will need to change in terms of English Wikipedia policies and the role of ARBCOM? Regards, The Land (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I think George asked a good question on the UCoC talk page, since it's unclear to me where exactly we stand vs. the projected timeline. There is plenty of discussion out there, though the WMF could have done much better in publicizing the project, IMO. It sounds like a lot of the objections were registered when the wounds from "Framgate" were much more raw, and, critically, before there was even draft language to look at. I think this explains my initial shock at the juxtaposition of the ferocity of some of the opposition to the UCoC and its rather reasonable draft language. There are, perhaps, a few phrases in the current draft I find silly or poorly worded, but I don't find any of the ideas expressed objectionable or anything that would require any changes to our policies or the role of ArbCom. I'd be curious to know of any of our policies you think we'd need to change. Perhaps I've overlooked something. --BDD (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Instant Comma

2. What is the biggest challenge or problem facing Wikipedia? Instant Comma (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Maintaining a sustainable base of editors. That means both attracting new ones and retaining existing ones. The latter, while still serious, strikes me as the less serious problem. Once you're into it, Wikipedia editing really is fun and is its own incentive to return. How many "retired" editors have we seen come back after a time? It's a bigger problem when someone can't (or won't) even come through the door, and inherently hard for us to say why that is. Is it systemic bias? Daunting documentation? BITE-y editors? You didn't necessarily ask for proposed solutions, though I think addressing those three factors are a good place to start. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Instant Comma (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Epiphyllumlover

2. Do you think that the strategy recommendations should be rewritten in a way which balances the keywords differently? If so, which topic(s) deserve more weight?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Not necessarily. I've seen enough such statements in my personal and professional life to be skeptical of how much of a difference they'll make in day-to-day work. I'm surprised that "Wikipedia" shows up so infrequently, but I realize the writers are aiming broadly, and like fish in water, there probably isn't a strong need to repeat it. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. If GPT-3 was caught editing Wikipedia with a human account rather than a bot account, would you block or ban it, assuming it was generally behaving in a constructive manner?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Fascinating question! I don't see any reason why GPT-3 editing by nature would violate any aspect of bot policy, though your question seems to presuppose a violation in that its bot nature would be undisclosed. If that were discovered, yes, I think a short-term block, at least, would be warranted. Ideally we could get in touch with whatever human set this up, point them to bot policy, and get something compliant set up. I hadn't heard of GPT-3 before, but it does sound like it's a step beyond bots as we know them, so perhaps there could be a larger discussion about allowing it to operate as a "human" going forward. But with any undisclosed bot, the potential for harm is so great, even from innocuous mistakes, that we'd have to have that conversation first. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Genericusername57

2. The proposed Universal Code of Conduct states Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people. Should this principle extend to religious names, titles, and honorifics?

   This is something that would probably need to be worked out on individual projects. Despite the "universal" in the title, it's a good example of why I'm skeptical the code will lead to dramatic change. Do we really think an editor would get blocked by not calling another editor "Dr.", short of solid community consensus for such a practice? There's also the matter of such titles implying authority or clout. If I tell you my preferred pronouns (he/him, by the way), there's little reason for me to be dishonest, and even if I did choose to misrepresent my gender identity, no one benefits or is harmed by it. I think it's appropriate that we would view with skepticism those practices that put editors on unequal footing. It seems contrary to the purposes of the UCoC anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Grillofrances

2. What's the useless article (or one of the useless articles) in the English Wikipedia according to you? I don't mean the quality by any measure but just that it brings no value to the readers regardless of how it's written.

   I don't begrudge anyone their deletionism, but this is really contrary to how I view the project. It's good to exercise discretion and judgment in how we present topics, and not just dump every possible fact, but

   usefulness can be very subjective. If I came across an article I thought was truly worthless, I might attempt to delete it. But more often, there's still potential. The best I can give you in terms of "useless articles" would be stubs that don't say anything more than "this thing exists". There's often no need to delete that, when we'll get around to expanding it. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Which article in the English Wikipedia contains the highest amount of false information according to you? If there's no such article currently, you can give a historic example that an article for an extended period of time (not a few minutes or a few hours like in case of simple vandalism but for many months or years) used to contain very much false information.

   Similar to my previous answer, I'm not aware of any such articles, because if I were, I'd try to address the problem. For a historic example, I could point to some of the longest-running hoaxes on Wikipedia, but that may not be very helpful if you already knew about them. There might be an implied question here of how we combat such misinformation; my best answer there would be to attract more subject-matter experts to editing. The really persistent hoaxes usually look convincing enough to fool readers not familiar with the subject matter. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Robert McClenon

Being asked of all candidates

2. Sometimes when a dispute is described either in a
   WP:ANI, an arbitrator or administrator says that it appears to be a content dispute. Many cases that are dealt with by ArbCom are fundamentally content disputes, except that conduct interferes with orderly resolution of the content issue. How would you assess when a dispute requires arbitration due to conduct issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I would mostly be interested in assessing previous attempts at resolution, and whether there are still stones left unturned before ArbCom needs to step in. Your observation about many such disputes being content disputes tainted by conduct issues is astute, and a good reason why we should not be quick to simply wave something off as a conduct dispute. Editor attitude is key in determining the degree to which there's a conduct dispute, and I'm skeptical many cases where everyone is acting courteously and in good faith will nevertheless be elevated to ArbCom. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Another type of case that is sometimes heard by ArbCom that is not a content dispute may be a case about an editor who has a long block log, but who is also a content creator, and another editor requests arbitration because they state that the subject editor is a net negative to the encyclopedia. (Such a situation will almost always involve an editor who has a combination of positive and negative contributions, because a difficult editor who is not also a content creator will be indeffed as
   not here constructively). Do you have views on when ArbCom should accept cases involving difficult editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I don't want to dismiss the usefulness of categorizing editors as net positives or net negatives—perhaps especially the former, where you certainly hope someone is a net positive at RfA, for example. But I think this touches on previous questions about "unblockables" and admins behaving badly. There should be some consideration of balancing positive and negative contributions. We all have our bad days, and an otherwise productive editor who lashes out suddenly should be treated differently from someone who throws firebombs from day one. The big gray area, as you identify, is those often difficult editors who also make undeniable positive contributions. In one of my answers to AmandaNP above, I noted the importance for ArbCom to consider ramifications of decisions, beyond the actions specifically ordered. It's easy enough to measure positive contributions, but how many potential positive contributions do we lose out on when we allow a contributive editor with a bad attitude scare others off? There isn't an easy answer here, or a one-size-fits-all one. Very much like the example of misbehaving admins, these are cases ArbCom should not shy away from, due to the lack of other effective remedies. Ramifications of not accepting a case also need to be considered. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from David Tornheim

2. Do you believe there should be a deadline for ArbCom to rule on appeals filed at
   WP:ARCA per these ([7], [8]) ArbCom policies? Do you feel it would be beneficial to have more process deadlines for ArbCom action in cases where there currently are none? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I don't want to give any blanket endorsements here, but I can certainly see the benefit of setting deadlines, or at least normalized time frames, in such processes, for the sake of transparency and reliability. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   The differences may not be as stark as you suggest. Britannica's "appears somehow to be effective in relieving pain" and isn't too far off from our "inconclusive", and we both refer to the likelihood of a placebo effect. I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue our article isn't better sourced and researched. While I certainly don't have a negative perception of Britannica, I do think the reputation you refer to via our article is more historical. When I consult it in my professional career, it's only as one piece of an overall picture (e.g., "Britannica says this, Wikipedia says that, [subject-specific encyclopedia] says this..."). --BDD (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]