Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Banedon

Banedon

I've been troubled by Arbcom for a while. This recent thread illustrates the issue [1] (also [2]). Since I've not been able to change the committee from the outside, the only alternative is to change it from within. If elected, I intend to make several major changes detailed below. If changes are not possible then I will still absolutely vote according to my ideals.

• Unlike Worm That Turned, I am idealistic. Justice comes first, and the just solution is the one Arbcom should most focus on finding.
• Because justice comes first, Arbcom should be structured more like a legal process and less like a community dispute resolution process. This means:
  • Cases should only be filed by someone with Standing (law) (or someone authorized by a person with standing). The filing party needs to be ready to argue the case, and the case request should identify who is allegedly causing disruption. Cases filed by those without standing, e.g. "here's a dispute which I am not involved in, but needs arbitration" should be automatically declined, while cases seeking general protections on a topic, e.g. [3], should be handled by motion.
  • Because of the above, case names can be changed to Filing party(ies) vs. Defendant(s). This solves the anchoring issue with case names [4][5] where the case is named after one party, which has historically almost guaranteed sanctions against that party.
  • I will accept more cases, especially those filed by experienced editors who presumably know what they are doing, because of the right to petition. Aggrieved parties who feel they cannot get fair treatment elsewhere should feel comfortable coming to Arbcom for redress. However, people are innocent until proven guilty - once we get to the evidence stage, the filing party must present its evidence first. If the evidence turns out to be weak, the case can be dismissed without requiring the defendant to defend themselves.
  • In the same way, Arbcom is not a glorified way for the community to reach a consensus. If it comes to it, Arbcom should be ready to ignore public opinion (as given in the workshop phase) on what should be done. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason.

I'm not a lawyer, but if necessary I will approach

I am willing to comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, and I have no alternate accounts.

• lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves
  )

2. Long time no see. Anyways, the WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   "Feedback" is rather vague. Can you clarify what kind of aspect of the UCoC you are looking at, e.g. its contents, its applications, etc?

4. Follow-up: I'll rephrase. What are your opinions on (everything you know about) the UCoC and enforcing it?

   I still cannot tell what kind of answer you're looking for. A code of conduct is clearly necessary, and this code of conduct reads pretty standard. As for enforcing it, as long as the someone who does it is a trusted person I don't think their identity is very important. Does that answer your question?

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

   The one I filed [6]. I started paying attention to arbitration because of that case. Without that case I wouldn't be writing this.

Questions from Joe Roe

2. How have you previously tried to change the committee from the outside? For example, have you proposed any
   amendments to ARBPOL
   ?

   I linked a few examples in the statement. This thread did lead to me changing the guide to arbitration [7]. It was a rather minor change though and didn't lead to any practical difference I'm aware of. In the other thread [8], CaptainEeek said they were strongly opposed to Arbcom becoming like a court of law and WTT was opposed as well. The other arbitrators didn't respond, which implies they aren't in favor, in turn indicating that any further attempt to change policy will be futile. The attempts to change anchoring in case names went nowhere, as well.

4. Follow-up question: so if the majority of the rest of the committee are opposed to your proposals, how do you plan to implement them if elected? Note that per the section I linked above, changes to the arbitration policy (certainly needed for the radical reform you propose) must be initiated by a majority vote of the committee or a petition of 100 editors.

   One has to start somewhere, though. And even if the rest of the committee are opposed, I will still vote according to my ideals. (Also the section says the committee sets its own processes.)

Questions from The Most Comfortable Chair

2. You mention in your statement that "Cases should only be filed by someone with Standing (law) (or someone authorized by a person with standing)" and that "This solves the anchoring issue with case names where the case is named after one party, which has historically almost guaranteed sanctions against that party." Can you further elaborate as to why restricting who can file cases will lead to a more approachable Arbitration Committee and fairer outcomes, if the crux of the issue you point out can simply be resolved with a change in the naming guidelines?

   Standing is important - without standing, you cannot be sure you have the best available evidence or arguments to come to a decision. That's because the people arguing the case might not actually be interested in its outcome and so might not try their best. Furthermore, standing prevents frivolous cases over non-existent disputes. The standing restriction will not on its own make Arbcom more approachable - that will have to come from accepting more cases and so providing a chance for the filing party to present their evidence even if there are a lot of nasty comments in the case request about them.
   Changing the case names is a separate issue. A simple change in the naming guidelines might not be sufficient because some cases are directed at individuals. How would you name this case?

4. You also mention that "once we get to the evidence stage, the filing party must present its evidence first. If the evidence turns out to be weak, the case can be dismissed without requiring the defendant to defend themselves." I have read cases in which the filing party ended up on the receiving end of the final decision, whereas the other(s) received less severe to no sanctions at all. How will your proposal ensure that those who have presumably done things that are sanctionable be held accountable if they are the filing party against someone who presumably has not done things that are sanctionable, and will it not open an avenue to
   game the system
   ?

   I don't see why requiring standing is at odds with WP:BOOMERANG. Certainly there have been lawsuits which backfired on the plaintiff(s). If the defendant thinks the filing party is the one at fault, then we can treat the case as also including a counterclaim by the defendant against the original filing party.

6. Follow up on question 2. — Wouldn't treating the case as also including a counterclaim make it similar to how cases function in the current system, in which — in my understanding — counterclaims are considered to be present, de facto? What I am trying get a sense of here is that — how would what you propose be an improvement over the existing framework?

   Not every case involves counterclaims. Example. This would be an improvement for the cases that don't. It should be pretty clear from the case request if a counterclaim is going to be involved (Example, where the defendant begins with "This is a vexatious filing", although they didn't follow through). If a counterclaim is involved, then the existing structure is OK.

Question from wbm1058

2. Given your "court-of-law" platform, what is your position on allowing secret evidence that defendants can't see, secret complainants that can't be cross examined and cases where the defendant cannot participate in their own defense, with the goal of protecting alleged victims? Please reconcile your platform with your opposition to this suggested resolution of a case where an editor was banned based on a closed, off-wiki proceeding.

   In the ideal world, the complainant will argue their case in public, and the defendant will be able to defend themselves. From what I understand of the Fram case, the complainant was sufficiently distressed that they approached the WMF directly, because they did not feel they can get a fair result from the community dispute resolution process. That is something I mentioned in the statement and is something Arbcom should fix. Given that the complainant has already approached WMF, and that the WMF decided on a particular remedy, then absent the information (which I don't have) I am going to assume that the remedy was justified. This is similar to how I am going to assume that when an administrator blocks a user, the block was justified. In Fram's case there's the extra fact that most opposition to the WMF decision that I saw was because process wasn't followed, not because Fram is innocent of the accusations. That makes it sound like the result is correct even if the process wasn't followed, for which we actually have a policy (

   WP:SNOW

   ).
   However, when the consequence is this severe, Fram should have a right to due process. Given where we were, due process would be an appeal, which is what happened. Again in the ideal world the complainant will argue their case themselves & in public, but since they were feeling harassed they delegated someone else to argue the case privately. It's my understanding that Fram did see some of the evidence raised against him, responded to that evidence, and a different set of eyes still ruled against him. So the result seems fair.
   The resolution you link to is a different thing since it contains five different points. I don't like the first point because as mentioned above it seems the result was correct, in which case the original sanction should remain in force until the appeal is considered. I don't like the second and third points either because people should already be doing those things (especially point 3). The fourth and fifth are reasonable. The way the resolution was proposed though the emphasis was clearly on points 1-3, hence I opposed. Does that answer your question?

Questions from Kudpung

2. Some users have already pre-empted questions I was going to ask and I have noted your answers.
   If one were to compare the structures of Arbcom cases and ANI threads (apples and oranges to some), what would be your opinion on the piling on and participation of users who are clearly not involved and their eventual influence on the deliberations of the Committee, i.e. should the Committee be examining directly uninvolved participants' comments for veracity, relevance and substance?

   If these comments provide evidence - by which I mean diffs and analysis, such as Joe Roe's evidence in the RexxS case - then they should be examined. If it's evidence-free opinion then they should be largely ignored. That said, it's my feeling that by the time cases get to the evidence stage, participants take things seriously. The case request is where things get messy and people pile on. It's part of the reason why I will vote to accept more cases.

4. If an accused declines to actively participate in the Arbcom case against them (Cf. RexxS) and/or retires from the project (or if an admin voluntary cedes their tools) during it, in your opinion would this be a clear admission of guilt and one that permits the Committee to pronounce the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers?

   It's not an admission of guilt per se, and it is still possible that defense isn't necessary (no case to answer). Still, if Arbcom decides that the defendant should enter their defense, and they refuse, then the chances of sanctions go up greatly precisely because there is no defense.
   I do get the feeling that people refuse to defend themselves because they feel it is futile. Structuring the case such that the filing party goes first, and having an intermediate step where Arbcom decides that yes there is a case to answer, in particular XYZ accusations, should help dispel that belief.

Than you for your answer to Q1. I have a follow up question to Q2:

2. I was hoping you would comment more on the justification of the Committee permitting itself to pronounce the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers (which they do), when the accused have exercised what most jurisdictions consider a fundamental right to silence. In the US there is the Miranda warning, and in England and Wales there may be no conviction based wholly on silence - where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. As you would prefer the Committee to operate more on the lines of a court of law, with or without a Grand Jury or a CPS system, I'm therefore curious as to how on Wikipedia, a purely voluntary project, a user can be either compelled by Arbcom to enter a defence or be sentenced by default to the severest possible penalty if they don't. Would you like to expand on your answer?

   I'll preface this by saying I am not that familiar with the right to silence, and I'll get help on it if you think it's a major issue. As I understand the right to silence, the key idea is for the defendant to "reserve their ammunition" for a better time. The key moment in time is when they first talk to a lawyer, who'll be better able to tell what they should say. Keeping one's silence until one speaks to a lawyer is not the same as not defending oneself, which is the scenario you are referring to.
   If the defendant does not defend themselves, then the chances of sanctions go up greatly because there is no defense. It means statements made by the filing party are not contested. When the filing party says X, even if ~X is true and the defendant can prove it, the court will not see that proof and so cannot consider it. The court also only gets one side of the story, and cannot be expected to discover the other side when the person most able to provide that other side is refusing to do it.
   This does not, however, mean that the "severest possible penalty" will be issued. The sanctions still need to be proportionate to the disruption. The severest possible penalty on Wikipedia is an indefinite site ban, and from what I've seen, it's not something that's often handed out.

FWIW, almost every developed country accords an accused person a fundamental right to say nothing, whether on arrest, during interrogation, or in the court room. Thanks for answering the questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Teratix

2. In your candidate statement you mentioned that you will accept more cases, especially those filed by experienced editors who presumably know what they are doing, because of the right to petition. Could you give a reasonably recent example of such a case that ArbCom declined, but you would have accepted?

   Examples are the second BHG case request and the concurrent Hijiri88 case request. The Hijiri88 case request is more contentious since the filing party hadn't been actively editing for that long. I would probably have asked them if they're aware of the seriousness of what they're doing and if they are ready to deal with the consequences. If they say "yes" then I accept the case.

4. You also wrote Arbcom is not a glorified way for the community to reach a consensus ... Arbcom should be ready to ignore public opinion (as given in the workshop phase) on what should be done. Could you give a reasonably recent example of a case where you believe ArbCom has inappropriately caved to public opinion?

   Again the second BHG case request is an example. I'm not saying Arbcom caved in to public opinion for that case request, but rather they took public opinion into account when they shouldn't, which gives the impression that cases at Arbcom is not at its core dissimilar to cases at ANI (I am positive the complainant in the Fram case felt the same way, which is why they did not file to Arbcom). The Flyer22 vs. WanderingWanda case request is similar (I wrote a statement there illustrating how I feel about it, as well).

Questions from 28bytes

2. Why the red-linked user page?

   Why not? I don't see a real advantage to having a user page that describes who I am, or having a user page that redirects to my talk page.

Questions from Mikehawk10

2. Standards of Evidence: What standards of proof should the arbitration committee use when deciding to enact a sanction on an individual, and should these standards vary depending on the type of sanction being considered?

   Great question, and makes me wish I had formal training in law. Without that, I am not confident in this answer. Still, here's an attempt to answer the question: it seems to me that this question should not arise for on-wiki disputes because the evidence is always clear. All the diffs are there, with timestamps and authorship clearly labelled. Off-wiki disputes are by their nature more serious, so a high standard of proof is necessary (it seems intuitively obvious that a higher standard of proof is required for more serious sanctions). I would peg it at clear and convincing evidence. I might be wrong, but I suspect that if we ever get to requiring proof "beyond reasonable doubt", then one should involve the local police, not Arbcom.

4. Standards for Evidence: When the arbitration committee is presented with off-wiki evidence (such as discord logs, screenshots of emails, or text messages), what is the mechanism that you believe the arbitration committee should implement to verify that the evidence presented is truthful, and how does your vision compare and contrast with current ArbCom processes in place?

   This should be verified to the extent possible. I'm guessing Discord logs can be acquired by joining the server and finding the relevant messages yourself. Emails & text messages can be confirmed with the telco or service provider. They might not be willing to share the information, in which case I would enlist the help of WMF to send a formal request. As for how this compares with current Arbcom processes, I am unaware of how Arbcom currently deals with this kind of evidence. It is presumably behind closed doors and one would have to ask a current arbitrator. Are you aware of how the current Arbcom does it?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. —

2. You filed
   WT:ACN. This was seemingly in reference to your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man/Proposed_decision#Question_about_notifications, where you say "One question: I'd like to notify Flyer22 Reborn and Jimbo Wales about the case now: Flyer22 because she's cited in my initial statement, and Jimbo because people regularly complain about civility on his talk page. Can I do so?". Your comment at ACN was criticized as "taunting" and "trolling" by two other editors before it was removed by an arbitration clerk with the edit summary "rmv trolling - clerk action". You then added "TRM in case you are not watching my or Jimbo's talk page, I'll say this here as well: I'm going to stop ignoring you and try to treat you the same way I do everyone else. You are now welcome to post on my talk page, ping me, send me public thanks, etc. If you do not want me to stop ignoring you, say so here, and I'll go back to ignoring you (and banning you from my talk page, ask you not to ping me, etc)". After a few more replies from some other users, the entire section was collapsed by a sitting arb with summary "hat unproductive conversation" (Link to archive
   ). Looking back on the situation, do you think the action to remove your comments was a correct one, and why or why not? if you think it was correct to remove the comments, what would you have done differently? Thank you.

   This was a sorry episode. You can take what I wrote on face value because there really isn't a deeper meaning, but unfortunately the other editors you mentioned didn't interpret the messages that way. The upshot is as of today, I'm still manually ignoring TRM and as far as I know I'm still banned from his talk page. It's not a big problem in practice - we don't actually run into each other on Wiki much - but it makes one wonder about what might have been.
   Do I think the action to remove the comments was the correct one? That's not for me to say because my point of view is necessarily very biased. If the other editors all think the comments are inappropriate then they are probably inappropriate. Could I have done anything differently? I genuinely don't know. I do think it was it a good idea to tell TRM that I was willing to reset our relationship. One has to start somewhere and the end of the case is a natural point to push that reset button. I also have to say that he is no longer banned on my talk page, etc, or there's no way he will know (in the same way I am not going to write anything to his talk page to find out if I am still banned there). Was it a good idea to notify Flyer22 and Jimbo? I think yes. I think it is probable they interested for the reasons I wrote. I knew it could be a controversial action however, which is why I asked about it. Could I have phrased what I wrote differently? Maybe. If you have an idea of what I should have written instead, feel free to let me know.

2. Thank you for standing. Would you have listened to SarahSV (aka SlimVirgin) in this case?

   No. As I wrote in the statement I will accept more cases, and this case is an example. Cases will always be stressful for all parties involved, but hopefully requiring the filing party to go first will make it less stressful for defendants. Claims such as *is one of the most genuinely kind editors* need evidence which is not appropriate on the case request page and should be given in the evidence page (I note SlimVirgin didn't offer evidence when the case reached that stage). The last sentence does make it sound like SlimVirgin believes a case will result in sanctions, which is why a case is to be avoided. If so, then dispelling that impression is important for the committee.

Question from TheresNoTime

2. In your opinion, what is the Arbitration Committee's core purpose?

   To resolve disputes on Wikipedia.

Question from Harry Mitchell

2. You refer repeatedly to "justice" in your nomination statement. To whom do you feel the Arbitration Committee needs to be just? To the participants in a case, to the encyclopaedia, to the editors, or to someone else? How would you resolve conflicts when it's not possible to give justice to everybody at once? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I find your question rather vague and therefore difficult to answer, e.g. when you write "it's not possible to give justice to everybody at once", that does not make sense to me because one does not give justice, one gives redress; and it is the decision that is just or unjust. Do you have a concrete example?

Questions from Sdrqaz

2. When accepting
   cases regarding administrative conduct, an oft-used qualifier is that opening a case does not mean sanctions are inevitable. However, historically, that has not been the case
   . What are your thoughts on the Committee's approach to desysop cases?

   This is exactly one of the things that troubled me about Arbcom. I mentioned it in one of the threads linked in the candidate statement. This quote from that thread is relevant: "What's especially troubling about this is that in the previous election, every single one of the elected arbitrators said the existence of a case doesn't indicate that the committee will impose sanctions. However if Arbcom is also looking for evidence of wrongdoing, and decline any case without such evidence, then of course the existence of a case means the committee will impose sanctions! The committee not imposing sanctions indicates there was no wrongdoing, and the case itself wouldn't exist without wrongdoing."
   My intended solution is to accept more cases, knowing full well that some cases will lead to no sanctions on the defendant because the evidence against them is weak (sanctions might still apply in this case, but on the filing party). In turn, this will hopefully make having a case against oneself accepted by Arbcom not so much of a "death sentence" as it currently is.

4. Of the decisions taken this year by the Committee, which one did you disagree with the most? Please note that may include choices not to take actions and simple inaction where you felt the Committee should have done so.

   Likely the second BHG case, which led directly to the other thread linked in the statement and further to this candidacy. Arbcom should have accepted that case without pre-judging the evidence, and afforded BHG the opportunity to defend themselves when they know what exactly the accusations against them are. I am especially critical of Barkeep49's comments (and BBD/L235 when they agreed with Barkeep49) in the case request - as I wrote, "Barkeep49 ... has already decided sanctions are necessary, before the evidence is heard, and even has an idea what the sanctions should be" which I think is very inappropriate.
   Caveat: as-filed, that case request should actually be declined because it was filed by a party (Ritchie333) without standing. However, Piotrus's statement does indicate that they are willing to argue the case, so it's a minor procedural matter to fix.

Questions from JPxG

2. You've mentioned that you would like to incorporate elements that make the Arbitration Committee more like a formal legal system. In most jurisdictions, there are two very different legal systems in place: one for civil suits (i.e. between two parties who are citizens or corporate entities) and another for criminal cases (i.e. between a sovereign entity and its citizens). Is the general structure of your envisioned Arbitration Committee likely to be drawn more from civil or criminal jurisprudence?

   Civil.

Question from BDD

2. Wikipedia:No legal threats is among our firmest policies. While not explicitly enumerated in the policy's rationale, I think an important driver of this is the fact that we're all volunteers. Few of us have legal training, and even those of us who do are typically not acting in an official legal capacity. How can ArbCom effectively mimic a real-world legal system if most of our community only has a layperson's understanding of law? Would you intend to enumerate an on-wiki working legal code, follow real-world systems as closely as possible, or take some other approach?

   Note WP:NLT still says a legal threat "is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia." Not having legal training does not mean we can't ask for help if we need it, or that we can't structure arbitration after a real-world legal system. I certainly intend to follow real-world systems as closely as possible, because the real-world legal system is designed to be fair, and fair is an ideal I believe should strive for. (Also I am not sure what you mean by "on-wiki working legal code", because we already have a lot of policies, and also WP:ARBPOL to describe the arbitration process.)

• Thank you for your answer. My assumption was that if we adopted your view, we would at least need to add to existing policies, e.g., by defining standing, and/or rely heavily on precedent, like the US judicial system does. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'd certainly have to make some changes, yes (e.g. to ARBPOL). I am not so sure about precedent, since nothing of that sort has happened in my memory of watching Arbcom. The most that has happened is Arbcom saying "community is encouraged to ___". Banedon (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from 1233

2. May I ask what you values most if you are to be elected to the ArbCom? Or what you think should be improved, or fixed first?

   I wrote about this in the statement. Justice comes first, and first thing to improve is the process.

4. It seems that you are trying to make ArbCom more formal as a psuedo-legal process and unexpectedly (if your changes are implemented) less accessable if you try to make it a process with more redundancy (i.e. case names, prohibition of filing of cases from outside parties, etc. How can you explain that?

   I don't see why the process becomes less accessible. An Arbcom that accepts more cases should be more approachable. The case request is still probably going to be nasty, but being able to present evidence and be taken seriously should be a significant reassurance during the process.

Questions from A7V2

2. As a hypothetical, suppose two otherwise very positive content editors are simply unable to get along (with the associated disruptions to discussions, etc), and arbcom ultimately imposes a mutual IBAN on them. One of the editors subsequently finds the restriction too restrictive and stops editing. Was the sanction a net positive for Wikipedia?

   I'm not a fan of IBANs in principle because they leave both parties hanging. But if this does happen (and it has, see this) I would still say the answer to "was it a net positive" is yes. Very positive content editors should not get to hold Wikipedia hostage by threatening to withhold their participation.

4. In general, should editor retention be a factor when deciding on sanctions? Should the type of editor (in a broad sense) and type of contributions they make matter in this regard?

   Until the day we have a policy which says "good editors have more leeway for bad behavior" (and I will firmly oppose such a policy) the answer to this is no. Lady justice wears a blindfold for a reason, and Arbcom should be impartial regardless of who the editors before it are.

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kolya Butternut

2. An SPI on Daner's Creek was opened this year in connection to an arb announcement, Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen. An investigation into one of the potential socks was declined as stale. Do you think it's important to investigate old sockpuppets so that others may recognize the patterns of new sockpuppets of actively socking users?

   SPI is not something I have experience with, so take the following with a grain of salt. It seems to me like you're describing something similar to mootness. If the user is inactive, then any sanctions are pointless, so an investigation is moot and one does not need to conduct it. Investigating these defunct accounts to help identify new sockpuppets sounds like an academic thing which people interested in SPI might do; for everyone else, it's not something to pursue.

Question from Epiphyllumlover

2. There is an active and routine off-wiki freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki. I have watched this corrupt discussions on enwiki, but would feel guilty reporting it, since I know that the editors actually making the comments really need the money. In addition, I feel that editors from the non-English speaking countries have the potential to contribute more to Wikipedia-- but fall into selling votes because it is both lucrative and requires little understanding of wiki code. It would be a shame to drive them away, given the great potential which would be lost. Would you support a WMF-funded bounty program modeled after the Nordic model approach to prostitution, where the editors from non-English speaking countries could receive a financial bounty for turning in their employers to ArbCom for discipline, while at the same time also be offered access to an exclusive Wiki syntax training program so they can build skills to pursue greater things?

   I have no strong opinion on this. It looks very similar to how in many issues people agree on the desired end state, but disagree on how to get there. I lack the expertise to critique the different methods so I neither support nor oppose such a scheme. Banedon (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Hijiri88

2. What is your stance on two-way IBANs that are imposed because of one-way harassment? In the past, ArbCom has rejected one-way IBAN proposals in favour of two-way IBANs on purely technical grounds (that they are subject to being gamed, that they "don't work", etc.), but if such a one-way IBAN is implemented and it doesn't stem disruption (for example, if the hounded party is simultaneously placed under a TBAN that is not placed on the hounding party), and instead only leaves the harassed party subject to repeated remarks of "User X is subject to an IBAN with User Y -- he wouldn't be banned if he hadn't done something wrong" and unable to explain the context, would you be open to repealing it? (I am assuming that BANEX applies to these questions.)

   As I wrote above I'm not a fan of IBANs in principle because they leave both parties hanging (and one-way IBANs are even worse). If we do indeed have one-way harassment then we block the harassing editor, the rest of your question does not arise, and move on.

Question from Stifle

2. Do you think you can do a good job as an arbitrator without being an administrator? Please give details.

   Yes, because why not? There was an RfC a while ago about whether arbitrators should automatically become administrators, and the result was no because one does not need admin tools to arbitrate. There's also the idea that arbitrators must be administrators because administrators are trusted by the community, to which I'd point out that presumably anyone who's elected to be an arbitrator is also trusted by the community - the process is similar.

Question from GoodDay

2. Will you be creating a userpage, if elected arbitrator?

   If I see a reason to. Right now I don't see a reason to.

Question from Thryduulf

2. How do you pronounce your username? I've always assumed "BAN-eh-Don" /bæn.əˌdɒn/) but I saw a comment implying someone else assumed "BABE-d'n" /ˈbeɪn.dən//). Thryduulf (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Good question. I mentally use the first pronunciation, but I've also seen people use the second. It's not a big deal to me (there are similar issues with my real name). As long as I know I'm being referred to it's OK.

Questions from InsaneHacker

2. You have stated that you would introduce some form of standing requirement for filing a case at ArbCom. However, across legal systems the interpretation of nominally similar standing rules varies. Can you provide some edge-case examples where parties would have standing and lack of standing respectively to illustrate how restrictive this practice would be?

   As mentioned above, the BHG case request is one in which the filing party lacks standing. The Motorsports case is one where standing is met.

4. I'm not entirely able to discern what consequences your standing requirement would have on the evidence stage. Would evidence filed by non-parties be allowed?

   Standing only applies at the case request stage. Requiring standing means at least one party will participate in the evidence page (can't find it now, but there was a case request some time ago where both protagonists didn't want to participate). During the evidence stage, everyone can participate.

Question from Atsme

2. How do you feel about ArbCom finally following through with DS amendments and the nearly irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE after the rather involved discussions at
   Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review/Consultation
   , which was closed and put on the back burner?

   Not sure how to answer your question. DS doesn't seem to do anything that other policies don't already do, e.g. administrators are already allowed to place blocks, topic bans, etc when faced with disruption. So unless DS is itself disruptive, it's not a priority and putting any review on the back burner is fine.

4. How can there be "justice" when we are dealing with serious ambiguities in our PAGs, a mobocracy at ANI which lacks decorum, and WP's known systemic biases?

   That is exactly why we must have an impartial Arbcom. Whatever else may happen elsewhere, once a dispute comes to Arbcom, everyone is equal and there is a fair result.

Thank you for your response and for your courage to run for ArbCom. I highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with the differences between normal, everyday admin actions vs an AE unilateral action that cannot be overturned by another admin, and what editors could be facing if the acting admin is prejudiced, knowingly or otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 03:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Robert McClenon

2. Some of the most troublesome disputes in Wikipedia are protracted content disputes that are complicated by conduct issues, such as
   Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
   is normally for relatively simple disputes that will take two or three weeks to resolve. Do you have any ideas for how to try to resolve protracted content-conduct disputes to minimize their division of the community before arbitration is sought?

   As mentioned above, if elected, I intend to accept more cases. Something being a content-conduct dispute is still within the jurisdiction of Arbcom (since it involves conduct) and therefore I will also probably vote for it to be accepted as long as the filing party knows what they're going into. Arbcom still should not rule on content disputes, of course, but these things you mention (stonewalling, filibustering, etc) ought to be provable without invoking content. I do not understand the second part of your question very well. There are several methods for dealing with pure content disputes. If it involves conduct, then there are also methods to handle it. Those methods should also suffice to handle content-conduct disputes. As for "minimizing their division of the community", one does not have to participate if one does not have to. I don't see a problem. If you still see a problem, please cite an example.

Question from Anon

2. Isn't your nickname appearing as red a good enough a reason to create a user page, even if it's just a redirect to your talk?

   Why should it be? It's just a colour.