v t e 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Quick guide Candidates: Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Personal voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. TRM Ealdgyth Epiphyllumlover Tryptofish Pythoncoder Giraffer Elonka Moneytrees Atsme Nick Kudpung

This page contains all questions asked of all candidates, in order to facilitate easy comparing between candidates.

Worm That Turned

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Kudpung

2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?

   I'd prefer that the arbitration committee does no investigation themselves - where evidence is incorrect, I would expect that to be highlighted by other case participants. There's many good reasons for that, from the skillset of the arbitrators, to lack of time and resources, to the loss of basic fairness (that participants can see what they're dealing with)
   What the committee does have a duty to do is weigh the evidence, making a decision on the balance between level of the negative impact and the quality / quantity of the evidence provided - in other words, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence, patterns should be shown etc.

4. In your opinion, are sitting arbitrators exempt from due process if and when they commit an indiscretion that would get a normal editor blocked or sanctioned?

   Of course not - an arbitrator should be subject to the same standards as every other editor at a minimum. Let's not forget though, with every role added on Wikipedia comes more responsibility and members of the committee have access to some of the most sensitive data there is - there are times where those responsibilities are breached. We cannot compare "whether a normal editor would be blocked or sanctioned", because a normal editor would not have had access to that information in the first place.
   For those situations, we have different procedures, such as the Ombuds Commission - a group which takes a long time and offers recommendations. I struggle with the lack of good procedures for these advanced rights, and therefore I do my best to tackle issues head on, nipping them in the bud where possible. I will talk frankly and directly to individuals where I believe colleagues have breached the standards that the community expect of them, will start internal procedures and follow them through if needed.

Thank you for your answers, WTT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question 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?

   Well, I'm going to preface this answer by saying that we are simply talking about a community process on a website and linking this to a legal system is something I am loathed to do as it does not reflect reality - however many do seem intent on doing so. I'm not legal expert, especially not on the US system of many different standards of proof. Here in the UK, we have two standards, one for criminal law and one for civil law and if we are going to apply a legal basis, then the latter is what we should be looking at - i.e. "more likely than not".
   Let's get back to reality though. If it was a simple decision of "evidence", then the decision wouldn't reach Arbcom. Instead, by the time we're looking at it, it's the balance of risk that we must concern ourselves with, risk to the project, risk to members of our community and as always risk is a balance of the amount of damage that could occur, the likelihood of the damage occurring. Equally, you have to look at the outcomes of action and inaction, who takes the brunt and whether they deserve it. These are all factors that should be weighed up.

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?

   I wish there was an easy answer to this. While on the committee, I've seen multiple instances of off-wiki evidence of problems and more than once has it been a

   joe jobs

   . When it comes down it, as per my other answer, the question is one of risk. Is it likely to be accurate? what can we do to verify the accuracy? How much damage would be done if it is accurate and we don't act? How much if it isn't and we do? They're always running through my mind.

Questions from NightHeron

2. Use of email: Should an editor's allegations against other editors be discussed in email with ArbCom members?

   I'm a little unclear about the question, so I'll answer each alternative.
   If an editor emails me directly with allegations, I would not pass that on to the rest of the committee without permission.
   Allegations made on wiki do get discussed on list as part of natural discussions.
   If an editor wishes to raise a case about another, it should be done on wiki unless there is off-wiki or private evidence.
   I haven't covered your question, please do ask a follow up!

4. Use of email: If an editor contacts you by email with some complaints or concerns that include allegations of misconduct or policy violations by other editors, and if that editor wants to discuss it with you by email without the notification or participation of the accused editors, how would you handle that?

   I would discuss via email, certainly. Indeed, I did this a lot back in the day for adoptees. A lot of discussion came around what the subject could have done differently, and what happened. I have no issue with this generally, I am a good ear when I have time. During a case is different - and based on the severity of the allegations, I might be recommending that they raise a case, take it to a board or ask for permission to pass the information on.

6. Follow-up: Thank you. At what point or under what circumstances would you not want to continue such an off-wiki discussion without hearing the other side of the story from the accused editors?

   NightHeron, I think I might be still missing your point. Are we talking about simple discussion between me and a single editor who has a grievance? I would likely continue such a discussion until it's natural end. I may well declare that conversation to other arbs / the community and even recuse from further cases depending on the circumstances. I wouldn't take action based on a conversation with only one side, so if I felt an action was necessary, I would contact the other - unsurprising as most of my actions are talking, I rarely press buttons as the solution.
   However, if you are referring to how the committee should behave, I've been focussed on the wrong point. Generally there, the committee should respond immediately with an acknowledgement - and look at the accusations. Depending on that, the group may dismiss the accusations, ask for more information, refer on wiki - all of which do not require and should not require contact with the other individual. Simply being contacted by Arbcom is not fun. If the committee is considering taking things further privately, they should contact the other side for their point of view.

Questions from George Ho

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   I was not particularly involved in the UCoC, intentionally. I'm rather jaded with respect to the Foundation, although that is not a reflection on the individuals, many of whom I've worked with directly and found to be lovely people. What they are trying to do with the UCoC is a Good Thing^TM, and I didn't want to be a grumpy old fuddy duddy standing in the way of that. What's more, I am generally happy with the way it turned out. Universal conduct is difficult because there are so many cultural differences around the world, and so many different standards in those cultures - what's come out at the end are points I agree with.
   The next step is working out who would enforce it, and that's where things get fiddly, with projects not wanted interference from the WMF or those without understanding of cultural context while equally the broader global community not wanting a single project to ignore the UCoC. There's a balancing act to find that middle ground, and there are people I trust on the drafting committees, so I'm hopeful for the future.

4. You have served as part of the ArbCom. Which ArbCom case has affected you personally as a Wikipedian?

   There have been a few which I still come back to in my mind. Two cases I was a party to raising issues about others, I can tell you were very stressful and I did not enjoy, they have certainly affected my outlook on Wikipedia, my focus on trying to meet deadlines and make proceedings less stressful for participants. Cases where I've participated less than I should have (whatever the reason), leaving my colleagues in the lurch. Cases where I've recused and watched as individuals I consider friends were put through the wringer. But, as much as there have been a number of cases that have affected me, none affected me more than the Fram case. The community was fractured, we had two dozen resignations of admins, pressure from all sides, multiple committee members had stepped down or stepped back. I did my best to get involved, to answer questions, to keep to deadlines, to meet everyone's needs and find a way to right the ship. It was the most difficult period I went through as an arbitrator and it does affect my outlook.

Questions from Nosebagbear

2. You write in your statement I am pragmatic and will focus on the best solution, not necessarily justice. What cases (and remedies/decisions within those cases) would you say have had you take solutions the furthest away from your interpretation of "justice"? Why would a just solution not have worked in those cases? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't you just love it when you put a generalisation of how you think and you get asked "ok but when has that happened specifically?". It's a good question and I have been struggling with it. "Justice" as a concept is that "people get what the deserve" and that's not what drives me on the committee. For example, I can think of multiple cases where we have focused on the mental health of an editor and allowed them to leave or stand down quietly because that was what was best for everyone, obviously I'm not going to give examples.
   You asked specifically about cases though - cases which focus on a content are rarely about justice. They're about finding some way for the community to be able to manage collaborative editing. The goal is different, justice may happen, but it shouldn't be the focus. I hope that answers your question.

3. Followup to Q1 (thus, perhaps Q1.1?): your answer mostly noted cases where individuals who might be otherwise sanctioned being able to leave calmly, or content cases. Are you aware of instances where an individual was sanctioned (or sanctioned more harshly) for the need of a practical outcome (perhaps in one of those colloborative editing cases, or not), than a pure "justice" position would have led to?

   Not off the top of my head. There have been a couple of cases recently where I disagreed with the outcome, believing the committee should have been less harsh - but subsequently, the behaviour of the subject has shown the committee as a whole right, and me wrong. Now, there is a possibility that the actions of the committee were a factor in the subsequent behaviour, but that's a philosophical rabbit hole. There's an argument that the WP:Super Mario effect is an area where the "victims" of one with advanced permissions do not get the justice that they deserve - but that would be going the other direction.

5. Question 2: I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   Thanks for the nudge on this

   WP:DUCK

   , an essay. Effectively, we're saying it should be obvious that user A and user B are related, so much so that we do not need any technical information - and, yes, I can accept that. Indeed, the example given there is excellent, a user is in a heated debate, blocked and then a different user carries on the debate in exactly the same tone immediately after, clear and obvious. If that was the extent of "Duck" blocks, the clear and obvious to anyone, then I don't think we'd have a problem. Things start to slide however, from obvious to anyone to obvious to the admin who makes the block. That's less good, but still acceptable, as the admin should be accountable and should be able to explain why it is obvious upon questioning. Then, we have the "BEANS" factor (Which doesn't match the BEANS essay), where we don't want to give away too much info, making them harder to spot, and we get in a muddle
   But I'm rambling and you had specific questions. 1) No, I don't believe there is a policy backing for not sharing public information. I understand the feeling behind it - that we don't want to make it easier for the person to sock in future, and they're a sock anyway so what do they matter and all sorts of handwavy thoughts like that. But, as you say it equally puts people in an impossible situation and if they're not guilty then they have few options.
   2) The worst cases we're talking about are down to, for want of a better term, laziness. It requires effort to put together the explanation, and the benefit to the accuser is little when they can just block and ignore - that's not justifiable. At the other end of the spectrum, the obvious cases are fully justifiable, we should not be wasting our time when things are completely obvious. Nor should we be spending time on those individuals who are only here to harass others.
   3) I don't believe you need to be an expert to appeal a 'Duck' block well. If you are honest about what you are doing and why, then the reviewing admin can use their judgement to see how plausible that is, weighed up against the "duck" evidence, which as I say above, should be available.
   4) I'm not sure I agree with that. Perhaps it encourages actual socking, as it may be easier to create a new account than persuade, but I don't think there's a simple lie that would lead to an unblock, and admitting socking when you did not does not lead to unblocks.

Questions from 1233

Below are my two questions. I plan on asking one (and only one) follow up question.--1233 ( T / C） 04:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. You consider yourself having been upset someone along the way for your focus on the best solution. How would you reflect on those cases, especially as a solution-based person. Do you think your focus on solution may sometimes create more problems? If yes, then how do you remedy that?

   You can't please everyone all of the time, and with many solutions, someone gets hurt. I have often reflected on times where I've hurt someone and when they have gone on to criticise me, to see if there was another way to handle it. Sometimes, I have seen better solutions in hindsight and work to incorporate those into my work going forward. Other times, I cannot, and therefore I must accept that some people will simply dislike me.
   There are times where the solution may cause more problems, and that should certainly be considered. If there is no net benefit, then why are we doing it. However, there are situations where a solution which will cause more problems is the right thing to do, like letting the community know about a problem internally. Yes, it may cause problems, it may cause awkward questions - but it still needs to happen.

4. Consider my home wiki as en but my most active wiki on zh, can you please comment, with reference to the September Office Actions on zhwp, on how ArbCom can effectively retain the right to self governance through local interference? (i.e. How work from ArbCom work prevent office actions from being implemented apart from law requirements (DMCA notices) through proactive interference on local issues)

   The issues on zh are certainly troubling, but the external forces are multiple and reach into the Chinese government as well as from the WMF. It's a very different situation from en.wp
   But, to answer your question, I believe there is a need for office actions - to protect community members from individuals who would cause harm. I was there, agitating for some of those earliest office bans and have given positive and negative feedback about more recent cases - it would be hypocritical of me to say that WMF should never interfere. The committee has a much better relationship with T&S these days, through the hard work of people like Maggie, Joe and Jacob, who have consistently been available for meetings and open with us about cases and given advice. There does feel like a genuine attempt to bridge the divide between the community and the WMF and for that, those individuals have my thanks.
   On the flip side, there is the issue of governance, and where the line is drawn. There are things that the community manages better, and the Foundation does not have the resources to manage. I'm glad to say that the relationship we have with those individuals has allowed us to say things like "it would be better if you didn't handle that in that way", or suggesting that certain issues could be passed to

   VRT

   .
   Long and short, WMF owns the site, but it wouldn't work without the community. Digging heels in on either side and insisting the other does, or doesn't do, something is only going to lead to more problems. Working together can lead to solutions.

6. Follow up on question 2: Are there some examples, from your past work, that shows that ArbCom can effectively retain the right to self governance? (That's the part of question 2 that seems to be unanswered, I'm not justifying office actions, but I would like to ask how you see ArbCom as a tool to reduce direct interference).

   We have no right to self governance, indeed, we have few rights on this site at all - as a community we have formed norms and values and a set of governance, but we don't have a right to any of it. If the Foundation shut the site down tomorrow or booted off the entire userbase, there is little we could about it. The content is freely licenced, we could move somewhere else and start again. We could see if there was any civil recourse, I suppose, but I wouldn't want to be part of that - overall the idea of a right to self governance under with these sorts of restrictions doesn't make sense.
   What we can do is show that self-governance is the best option. That the community can manage itself, that we consistently make considered decisions, weighing up the same factors that a different governance group would. I believe the committee does that in every decision it makes, every statement it puts out. Do I have more specific examples of ensuring our self-governance? Necessarily not, as many of the specific examples I've alluded to in my previous answer, much has happened off-wiki in calls, working as a team with the Foundation rather than against them, and being able to make actual suggestions which can be picked up.
   Thinking further, there is one set of examples that I have been involved with, and that would be statements issued by the committee. They should be few and far between as it's not something that the committee is really tasked with - however, when the committee is willing to stand together behind a statement, it has a strong effect - so a specific example that was visible to the community would be the committee's Open letter to the board in light of the Fram's ban.

Question from TheresNoTime

2. Hi Dave, thank for standing for re-election. What do you think we should do if no one else puts themselves forward as a candidate? :-)

   They will - it happens every year, and there's always a lot of stress over it. I've said on my talk page, I don't hold with it, I've had long enough to make up my mind on whether to run and it's not contingent on others running - but there you go. What do I think we should do without any other candidates? That's easy enough. Disband the committee (or start the countdown to disband it at the end of next year). The community deals with most content things these days. Functionaries can take over CU/OS appointments and private information. The world would turn without Arbcom, as would the Wikipedia globe.

4. (Thank you for your previous answer) In your opinion, what is the Arbitration Committee's core purpose?

   That's a surprisingly difficult question, TNT. I could answer "what's the point of Arbcom" easily enough. It's there to make final binding decisions on issues that the community can't handle, it's there to appoint CU/OS and review any of their decisions that need reviewing and finally it's there to look after those mucky bits that the community shouldn't have to worry about. What's the core purpose, though? I'd say it's "to handle the stuff that the community, for whatever reason, can't or won't". (I realise that there's a contradiction between the two answers - "Can" is a very awkward word. Perhaps "won't" would be better... I'll add that)

Question from Banedon

2. You wrote above and in your statement that 1) I am pragmatic and will focus on the best solution, not necessarily justice as well as 2) we are simply talking about a community process on a website and linking this to a legal system is something I am loathed to do as it does not reflect reality, both positions that run directly contrary to a thread I started on WT:ARBCOM recently [1]. Did you intentionally do this? If yes, are you indirectly suggesting that I stand as a candidate to oppose you?

   Hi Banedon. No, I was not referencing that thread - it was not in my mind when I wrote either of those two statements. I speak about pragmatism regularly, indeed I believe I used the word twice in my response to your question 2 years ago, similarly you will find my general rule of "it's just a website" on that page too. These are long term views that I trot out regularly, and I believe I put forward in that thread too as part of my point.
   As for standing as a candidate, I would welcome that. The committee should be made up of individuals from across Wikipedia, and of individuals who are willing to speak their mind, weigh up arguments and make a decision based upon those arguments. Nothing in there about agreeing with me! I believe I've disagreed with most, if not all, of the arbitrators over the years - but I don't consider that a bad thing!

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?

   Desysop cases are difficult, because Arbcom is the only place where a desysop for cause can currently play out. However, a desysop for cause is an unpleasant experience for the individual in question (I've spoken before about disciplinary procedures, HR, and whether it should all be public facing), so committee members are rightly hesitant to take on such cases. In those cases where it is clear that we should not be hesitant, it's quite likely that the right outcome is a desysop. That combined with the high standards we have for admins, and the low likelihood of someone putting in the effort to bring a case makes it far more common for cases that actually occur to end up with sanctions.
   What are the alternatives? We could accept a more cases, lowering the standards for acceptance, leading to more cases where no sanctions take place - and use far more of the communities time. Is that a good thing? I don't believe so. What about a private "disciplinary" system? Well, it would have positives, but "desysoped by star chamber" would not go down well with our community. I had hoped to bring in regular reviews of all admins, but the community weren't up for that. There's a good idea in the current RfA Review, taking the "personal" out of admin reviews, which I hope will help the wider issues.
   Overall, I've considered quite a few desysop routes, I do think that the committee's current route is working. There is potential for improvement, but I'd like to see an alternative as a priority.

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.

   Most of this year's Arbcom stuff has been fairly reasonable, I'd not go so far as to strongly disagree with any. With hindsight, I may have made a different decision, delayed the Flyer22 / Wandering Wanda case a week or two at the beginning of the year, or maybe even accepted the Article Rescue Squadron one at the end (as things are still bubbling there), but I can't say I actively disagreed with anything during the year. The only place I really see myself at odds with the committee decision was on the Supreme Deliciousness ban on the Kurds and Kurdistan case, but I came to voting a little late and there was already consensus against. I was wavering myself, so simply abstained. Whether or not I should have done something different, time will tell.

Questions from Cwmhiraeth

2. As a former member of ArbCom, did you ever take part in a case in which you probably should have recused yourself?

   Not that I can recall, I generally err on the side of recusing too easily rather than the other way around. Where I see a possible recusal issue, especially one of optics, I raise it with the committee to get their opinions on the matter. Interestingly, I've had more trouble finding the balance on recusal around my 'crat hat, where I've commented in chats as an individual. It appears that the standards for recusal amongst crats have tightened over the years to be closer to that of Arbcom (it wasn't that long ago that those who voted in an RfA could also participate in the crat chat).

Question from wbm1058

2. Should ArbCom-appointed checkusers be allowed to unilaterally tag a user as a likely sockpuppet of another user, point to the (perhaps years-old) sockpuppet investigation of the alleged sockpuppeteer, and then block the accused new user based on only behavioral evidence (i.e. with non-confirming technical evidence), without first conducting a community examination of the alleged behavioral connection and gaining a community consensus to block? Indeed, per this example, "Undid revision 1055911694 by xxxxx leave this for User:yyyy" the impression given by that edit summary is that the decision is only to be made by the accusing checkuser admin – who has yet to open a formal discussion on the matter. Are you OK with that?

   This is clearly related to the latest election drama, which I believe the the election coordinators have managed well. But since I'm a candidate in said election, I'll only speak to general cases, with my general opinion.
   Checkuser is a tool which has its place, it can expose farms of sockpuppets, sleepers and so on. However, it is not magical and

   easy enough to manipulate

   . Therefore, we expect our checkusers to consider information such as behavioural evidence and private evidence. Where private evidence has been used (be it through the checkuser tool or other means), we expect it to be clearly noted by the checkuser, and we expect other users to respect that they should not make decisions as they do not have access to the full information. This is true even if they are given access to some private information, as the CU may still have more. However, if the checkuser has not marked it thus, it should be available for any other editor to be involved. There's no ownership on Wikipedia, we're all part of a great big group working together.
   Now, in this specific case, which I'm not going to go too far into because of the location of the issue, I will point out that you may have a missed out a crucial point, who the block was by and what it was for. You may also wish to double check the order things happened. Am I ok with how things have gone down? No, I have a few issues, but ACE always throws up this sort of thing, because everyone is on edge, people are trying to manipulate the system, and so on. I'm hoping things will all settle in a couple of weeks.

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?

   Hypotheticals differ massively from real life, because they miss out so much context. I'm glad you have the words "Arbcom ultimately... " in there, as I can infer that whatever has been happening has been causing disruption for a long time and the community has not been able to deal with it. In addition, we have a mutual IBAN as the only sanction - which I believe to be one of the most lenient restrictions, and should not carry a stigma (it is true some people just do not get along)
   So in this scenario - we have to weight up the loss a very positive content editor against the long period of community disruption, which will add to a long term malaise of the community, which massively impacts volunteer retention. It's often hard to see the long term damage that disputes can cause and easy to see the loss of that one individual. I don't like the terms "net positive" or "net negative", because I don't think you can sum up people like that - but I will say that losing a very positive content editor is always a blow, even if it is a necessary one.

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?

   It does factor in - of course it does. The committee is designed to be the final port of call for disputes - and if we wanted to be properly final, we'd just ban everyone or some other massively disproportionate response. Instead, we want to keep editors, both those currently active and those who may join in the future. We must consider why the dispute has reached the state that it has, whether individuals are likely to carry on as they are, and what measures we can put in place to help them correct their course, thereby helping the entire community. Does that directly translate into simple boxes of "this editor has written 5 FAs and is therefore more valuable than this editor who has held adminship for 3 years" or anything like that? No - not directly. But past behaviour must be a factor in our decisions, otherwise the cycle will repeat.

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 04:06, 23 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?

   Hi Kolya Butternut. I'm not sure what you're looking for out of this question - you have been agitating on the topic for too long and have been warned to either stick within community norms or step away. But I have a personal policy of being open to questions around this time, so I will answer your direct question without addressing the rest of the issues further.
   Investigating a potential sockpuppet that made 30 odd edits in one day nearly a year ago is a waste of community time. The lack of edits and stale nature of the technical data make it impossible to confirm the likelihood to any degree of accuracy and therefore any future patterns extrapolated from that investigation could taint future investigations. So, no, I don't believe it is important to in this particular situation.
   I'd go further too and repeat something I said elsewhere - Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia for "anyone" to edit. As long as that's the base position, and obfuscation of data is so simple, I do not see the benefits of chasing sockpuppets. Put another way, if your mindset is "I must stop this person editing Wikipedia", you are going to have a hard time. If you mindset is "This person is damaging Wikipedia in such and such a way", then things become clearer. Spending time looking into ... old sockpuppets so that others may recognize the patterns of new sockpuppets falls squarely in the "I must stop this person editing Wikipedia" side of things, and therefore wastes community time and resources.

I'm confused about why this question is not seen as within community norms. This is connected to a case which I was involved in, so candidates' responses to this question will help to inform my vote, unlike the answers to topics I am unfamiliar with. I am not particularly concerned if this person continues to edit Wikipedia at this point (when the edits are constructive, as opposed to !voting in RFCs for example); I see socks that pop up as similar to an article on my watchlist that has bugs. I am concerned, however, that this topic seems to be treated differently than any other potential LTA. I think that documenting a stale sock on an SPI page is helpful, if not for behavioral evidence than as a history of socking timelines. Beeblebrox's comment was I fail to see any point to an investigation of any kind. I would expect at least a five minute lookover. As a followup, do you feel that documenting a stale sock on the SPI page of a potential LTA is helpful? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what is informing my opinion of "not within community norms" is historical, so I won't go further into that now. Regarding your direct question - I'm all for documentation - adding the stale potential sock to the SPI page is a useful thing to do for a number of reasons.

1. It can show the pattern of socking, if future socks are discovered.
2. It can show the potential extent of socking.
3. It shows what similarities have been found and the result given. In this case the result is "May or may not be accurate, not worth further investigation".
4. It can show who has been doing the investigation, what level of investigation they have put and what level of interest they have.

I saw absolutely no issue with you filing that report, that action was a good one. I also see no problem with the outcome of "stale, nothing more to do". Worm^TT(talk) 12:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Subverting our consensus model is, in my view, one of the most problematic behaviours that can be shown on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not focus on expertise, but instead on consensus of arguments - with it, we have proven ourselves to be something special and it is therefore the core of what is great in Wikipedia.
   So with that in mind, how do we deal with such problems. I will say that I think that the Nordic model is the right model for dealing with prostitution, but I'm not sure that it translates to the solution you put forward. I'm especially hesitant to the "financial bounty" route. The moment you put money into the model, you put a numerical value on functions and risks massive damage to the encyclopedia. I've said multiple times, I'm willing to volunteer my time for nothing, but the amount that I expect to be paid for the same - Wikipedia wouldn't (or shouldn't) be able to afford me. I would expect that if there is a bounty put forward, it would be open to manipulation by those who would want to grab the money and would not have the desired effect because those who wish to subvert the encyclopedia would be able to afford to beat the bounty. On the financial aspect alone - I could not support your solution.
   The rest, though, is admirable - the hope to bring the editors into the fold, the training etc, all good. I'm not sure where "Arbcom for discipline" would work, because our jurisdiction is on en.wp, and this would be a larger issue across projects - and so I would be expecting a larger solution. We are, of course, on a hypothetical here as I've no details.
   Finally, I will end on one point - You are right, people need money to live and we should consider that - in addition, it is understandable that people would want to make money through something they are interested in or passionate about. However, there are many ways to make money, and as I said at the top, this way of making money does significant damage to the encyclopedia for everyone, including themselves. It needs to stop.

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.)

   I am not a fan of one way interaction bans - I think it's rare that they are the best solution and would almost always prefer two-way. I've said above that I believe that a standard interaction ban should not carry stigma, should not follow "he must have done something wrong" remarks and so on. However, I do appreciate that it does happen. That being said, one-way harassment is exactly the sort of reason that a one-way interaction ban should be put in place, though if harassment is occurring a block/ban should also be the go-to option depending on the severity.
   Regarding your hypotheticals (as I am not looking up any specifics) - if a historical two way interaction ban was chosen simply for technical reasons (where today a one-way interaction ban would be chosen) and implemented by the committee - especially if the circumstances are recorded in the case, that should be looked at with an ARCA with a view to changing the remedy. If a 1 way interaction ban is applied in the opposite direction of the harassment, that should be repealed, and I would again recommend that it went through an ARCA. Again, based on the information given, as I am not putting context to these questions.

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position now that we've had some rather involved discussions about
   DS amendments
   and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which was put on the back burner in 2021?

   Discretionary sanctions aren't perfect. I was on the committee during the

   WP:BRD

   , once an action is reverted, it consensus is then formed. DS shifts that to make the decision binding, and that's a reason we should use DS as little as possible. Does it make DS too powerful? Quite possibly, and perhaps we should introduce better modification / removal processes. Equally, we don't want to make the system too complex and stop editors / admins from using it, leaving us back in the mire of problems again. Much to consider, much to improve.

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?

   The community has got so much better at managing these sorts of disputes, which is why Arbcom gets so few cases, and Medcom no longer exists. Between solutions put forward at noticeboards, such as Community endorsed general sanctions or RfCs, or more complex discussions at DRN, I do believe the community has the ability to resolve the vast majority of complicated conduct/content disputes. But, as to your questions
   Arbcom should, as a rule, focus on the conduct and do it's best to stay away from content - the encyclopedia would be a poorer place if the content was decided by a non-expert committee like Arbcom. However, sometimes conduct and content are so intertwined that one must be considered alongside the other. In those cases, as with all cases, the decision on whether to accept should be based on whether the community would be able to handle matters without Arbcom intervention. I don't have recommendations for how to resolve protracted content-conduct cases, much of what I wrote

   WP:ANI

   as a step too as I think more things are actually solved there than they used to.

Beeblebrox

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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?

   You've linked to Burden of proof (law) which concerns legal standards. I rather think Burden of proof (philosophy) is more on point when it comes to arbcom. We do not have, and should not have, specifically defined standards. Assuming we are referring to full cases here, what we do have is one or more individuals coming forward asking the committee to solve some intractable problem. We ask them first to prove that the community is truly unable to resolve it and therefore a case is warranted, and then, if a case is accepted, to identify specifically from where the problem stems. Given that the committee examines behavioral issues only, this almost always entails evidence that one or more specific users are the ultimate source of the ongoing issues. What I personally expect to see is multiple examples where there is clear agreement that a behavior is not acceptable, and yet it continues regardless. The standard by which we judge this are lower for administrators, as the community is at this time not able to remove administrative status and it therefore must be handled by the committee, but I would still expect to see the same type of pattern. Persistence, in almost all cases, is a key component. This is critical difference between what the committee does and a court proceeding. We generally will not even hear a case on a "first offense" unless it entails extremely egregious behavior by a holder of advanced permissions.

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?

   In this area it is very dependent on what the source is. In some cases accounts are confirmed to their on-wiki usernames, or the user may have some indication on their userpage what name they use on other forums. Screenshots of any kind are much more difficult to examine as the committee usually have no way of verifying with any degree of certainty who sent them. Even if the committee is forwarded the full email with headers intact, it often cannot verify who actually sent it as it simply does not have access to users email addresses, and image manipulation software and unlimited, free, throwaway email accounts are a thing. (In fact, this past year we had an appellant who was sending the committee "evidence" that they were being harassed off-wiki that we became convinced they were simply emailing to themselves.) This is where being on a committee comes in. The committee is by no means a monolith, often one member will catch something that has escaped everyone else, or will simply interpret something in a way that failed to occur to others. When the committee cannot overcome it's doubts about the provenance of a piece of evidence, it cannot be considered to be evidence.

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

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   As a statement of principles, it's fine. I do have concerns about who is expected to enforce it, and how.

4. You have served as part of the ArbCom. Which ArbCom case has affected you personally as a Wikipedian?

   A natural affect of the committee being more selective about what cases it will hear is that often only the really difficult, unpleasant ones make the cut. Hard decisions must be made, sometime users you know to be otherwise fine people and good Wikipedians end up being sanctioned. That's no fun for anyone involved, but dealing with such things is one of the most important functions of the committee. Cases are the most visible thing the committee does, but I have also found that a lot of the behind-the-scenes stuff can be really challenging. We've had to look into some rather dark allegations these past two years, some of which involved people's real-world circumstances and identities. And we've had to live with the fact that in some of these cases, we simply aren't able to come to a solid conclusion. It's frustrating, but so long as we allow anonymous editing it's just part of how it all works.

Questions from Joe Roe

2. You say that you feel like the committee is also in a time of change, for the better, and would like to keep trying to move it in that direction. What is that direction and why is the committee changing?

   It's a gradual change, to be sure, that started before my latest term. I have felt a different sort of "vibe" than when I was previously on the committee in 2014, and the way the committee does many things now is a very long way from how they were done a decade or more ago. The newer iterations of the committee have been very thoughtful about the limits of what arbcom can and should do, have been able to disagree without becoming nasty about it, and have been more transparent, as much as they can be. The committee got a lot of new blood last year as well, many of whom ran on instituting reforms, which they have worked hard to try and make a reality. I also feel there is greater willingness than in years past to hold users of advanced permissions accountable for their actions. (I certainly don't mean to disparage the fine group I worked with in 2014, to my mind this is more a reflection of the committee evolving as an institution.)

Question from Little olive oil

Questions from Ritchie333

2. You've spent quite a bit of time posting at
   Discord as a communication platform, and I'm sure you remember some problems we had with IRC communication
   . So, I have to ask the question - what do you think the Arbitration Committee should do when consider off-wiki platforms? Should they take a "hands off" approach, is Arbitrators getting involved in off-wiki discussions acceptable, within discretion, ill-advised, or something else?

   Wikipedia has rules in place, such as

   WP:NOTFORUM

   restricting the types of discussions that can be had here. I don't necessarily disagree with those rules, this is an encyclopedia, everything else comes second. However, it was pretty much always inevitable that there would be off-wiki discussion forums, and I think that's fine. These forums do of course vary in their scope and purpose. Some are for users to ask for help with things, others are focused on criticism and analysis, and some are somewhere in between. And there are those that are simply attack sites, where it is sacrilege to speak any sort of positive word about Wikipedia or anyone who edits there. None of these forums operate under the same rules as Wikipedia, indeed, that is generally their purpose. This is where i think some folks suffer from misconceptions. Personally, the only forum I participate in is Wikipediocracy. It is a criticism site. Many people seem to misinterpret that as an attack site. Now, I certainly am not going to defend everything that goes on there, there are regularly posts that advance truly boneheaded conspiracy theories. There are people there who insist everything arbcom does is a sinister cover-up of someone-or-others wrongdoing. That being said, there are also, quite often, perfectly valid, well researched criticisms of Wikipedia editors or content. That is what I am there for. I have personally been moved to act on problematic content due to it being pointed out there, and several serious editorial issues have also been uncovered there, at least one of which concluded with an ArbCom ruling. In other words, sometimes the criticism leads to very real improvements here on-wiki. That being said, in the last two years of social isolation,working from home, etc, I have realized that to a certain extent it replaced actual socializing for me, and the community made it very clear that some of what I was discussing there was not material they wanted a sitting arbitrator to be discussing off-wiki. I have taken that criticism on board and endeavored to keep it in mind when posting there in the time since.(I have also endeavored, as a personal matter, to spend less time making comments on any sort of forum or social media platform.) However, others commented that an arb should not post there, ever, for any reason, because there are "bad people" there. I reject that criticism entirely as just wrongheaded, but also because arbs who have been on the committee far longer than I have have commented there for many years without any such prohibition even being proposed, let alone gaining a consensus. Moving on to how the committee should regard users participating in various off-wiki forums, it depends on the forum, the level of vetting it uses, and the actual content posted. Rules are looser in these forums, but if it can credibly be claimed that a user is engaging in certain behaviors in these forums, i.e. hate speech, sexual harassment, doxxing, threats of violence, etc, we should certainly consider that highly problematic and take appropriate action.

2. 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 and taking those comments into consideration?

   Both forums, by their very nature, are a place to solicit outside perspectives, but both also suffer from pile-ons of less-than-helpful participation. At ANI we often see discussions become extremely bloated, with users wandering into thread after thread to post their rambling first impressions of whatever dispute is "hot" that day. At ArbCom this issue is most visible at case requests, it is not at all unusual to see statements continue to pile up even after it is obvious that the case will be accepted or declined. Both venues at times suffer from bad signal-to-noise ratios, making it harder for admins or arbs to be thorough yet fair. ArbCom cases have some mechanisms in place to mitigate this, in particular word limits. While outside opinions, i.e "to an outsider it looks like you are arguing about something that is truly not important" can be useful, I do also think that some users fall into the trap of thinking that their particular insight is needed in virtually every situation. ArbCom cases do have looser rules for the named parties, and the committee is usually more liberal about granting exemptions to those rules to the named parties, as they are presumed to have more intimate knowledge of the dispute. When it comes to actual case evidence, the goal is that all of it be subject to the kind of scrutiny you mention. Many if not most cases see submissions of evidence that the committee ultimately decides is simply not relevant, either due to being off-topic, or not actually showing any wrongdoing by anyone.

2. 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 by default the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers?

   Not at all. We are all volunteers here, nobody can make anybody participate in anything if they don't want to do so. Having an ArbCom case focused on one's own behavior is not a good time, and it's easy to understand why some would rather just not be involved with it. It's not an admission of guilt, even if they do give up the tools voluntarily. It could easily mean that they simply don't find it worth their trouble anymore.

Than you for your answer to Q1,

2. It is claimed by some that little or no participation by an accused generally results in a more severe sentence. In the RexxS case, the members' opinions on an accused's right to silence varied from one extreme to the other. Consensus was however, like your answer above, that participation is neither an obligation, nor should it be taken into consideration for the severity of the sentence. Whether or not Arbcom functions according to Case law, or makes up its own rules on a case-by-case basis, in the interests of consistency would it make sense to get some kind of ruling established in policy?

   We already have a bit of guidance at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Expectation of participation in proceedings, where it says named parties are "expected to participate," and I do think it is generally in their best interest to do so. While not participating isn't an admission of guilt, it is a failure to present any defense. ArbCom is not an investigative body, the committee follows the evidence presented. If there is no counter-evidence, or even counter-argument, there is no onus on the committee to imagine what it might be or to look for it on its own. Perhaps we could make that point a bit more obvious in the procedures.

Question from NightHeron

2. Off-wiki discussion of other editors' conduct: In connection with your answer to Ritchie333's question, how would you handle a situation where an editor or group of editors wants to discuss with you off-wiki (by email or social media) allegations of misconduct or policy violations by editors with whom they've had a contentious content dispute? Suppose that they've had no success bringing similar allegations to ANI or other on-wiki forums, where the accused editors must be notified.

   I'm certainly not going to "take a case" on an off-wiki forum. I have sometimes seen credible allegations made on such forums, but they need to be actually handled on-wiki. The committee does of course regularly receive such emails, as do individual arbs. If the reason for the email contact is that there is sensitive information involved, it's ok to proceed with the matter, although the next step is usually to contact the subject to ask about their perspective. If there is not sensitive information involved, they are generally told to file on wiki. If that isn't working out for them, that is usually an indication that their complaint is without merit.

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. You accepted the RexxS case. I would have listened to SarahSV (aka SlimVirgin). In a similar situation, would you perhaps change your mind?

   As I said in my nomination statement, I do think it is important to remind ourselves that behind every username is a real person. However, that also includes those on the other end of inappropriate behavior from an administrator. That is what that case was about, and as I said at the time, arbs need to be willing to take these cases because the committee is the only body on-wiki able to remove an admin. I think you can see from the arb comments that we didn't really want to do this, but felt we had to. Admin conduct cases are as unpleasant as they are necessary. I think we all hoped that the end result was that RexxS would just go back to being the awesome non-admin Wikipedian he had been for many years before ever running at RFA. In the end I think the case serves as a sad reminder that one can be a really great contributor to this project without ever being an administrator. Like yourself, I hope RexxS comes back one day, I hope he can see that this was not a wholesale rejection of all the great work he's done for the project and the movement.

Question from TheresNoTime

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

   I would say the main purpose is to resolve intractable disputes when other avenues have not succeeded in doing so, in the form of full cases. However, there are secondary roles that are largely invisible. One is dealing with unblock requests from users who have no other avenue of appeal (this is huge part of what the committee does these days but it's 98% invisible on-wiki). Another is ... I don't want to say managing the functionaries, that doesn't sound quite right, the teams generally manage themselves pretty well, but once in a while the committee does need to step in and advise a team member that their actions are out of step with expected standards and practices. And, although I myself have said many times that the committee is not an investigative body, that applies to on-wiki cases, sometimes, like the recent block of an RFA candidate, the committee does investigate matters that can only be decided based on private evidence such as checkuser data.

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?

   I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I am for sure one of the more "hawkish" arbs when it comes to admin misconduct. It's something I take very seriously, and I've filed two such cases myself as a non-arb, and presented in evidence in one or two others. To answer your question: Taking a case means the filing party and others presenting evidence have made a compelling case that a problem exists. So, while it is not a foregone conclusion, there are only so many things the committee can do about administrative misconduct. Whenever it comes up, it is my sincere hope that somewhere during the course of the case there will be some sudden moment of profound realization, where the admin in question seems to truly understand why their conduct has wound up being the subject of an arbcom case. Sadly, I have yet to actually see it happen. So, while desysop is not a foregone conclusion, it is undeniably the most statistically likely outcome. As I have stated on several occasions, I do not feel that limited bans or other lesser sanctions are usually appropriate in admin conduct cases. Admins are supposed to be trusted members of the community, if they require an ArbCom-level sanction to get them to behave, they have lost my trust in their ability to be an admin at all. I know the committee made some unpopular decisions in this area in during my term, but those decisions were made in the best interest of the project as a whole. It is always hoped that admins who find their tools removed will stay on and maybe go back to whatever they did here before becoming admins, but sadly, that is often not the case, which is unfortunate because I've actually seen comments from several former admins that they actually found it liberating to be a "regular user" again.

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.

   This is probably not the most satisfying answer, but we had an off-wiki discussion about issuing a formal warning to particular user who seemed unwilling to let a certain matter drop even after we asked them nicely to do so. I was strongly in favor of an on-wiki warning that was visible to one and all, but instead they got a "please stop doing that" email from the committee, which they basically ignored. Since nothing was ever said on-wiki I can't really elaborate on it.

2. Should ArbCom-appointed checkusers be allowed to unilaterally tag a user as a likely sockpuppet of another user, point to the (perhaps years-old) sockpuppet investigation of the alleged sockpuppeteer, and then block the accused new user based on only behavioral evidence (i.e. with non-confirming technical evidence), without first conducting a community examination of the alleged behavioral connection and gaining a community consensus to block? Indeed, per this example, "Undid revision 1055911694 by xxxxx leave this for User:yyyy" the impression given by that edit summary is that the decision is only to be made by the accusing checkuser admin – who has yet to open a formal discussion on the matter. Are you OK with that?

   It is fairly routine for admins to block socks without first getting a consensus as to whose sock they may be,and making it a hard requirement for them to do so would likely lead to massive logjams at SPI. There was an error made here in identifying the puppeteer, but I'd note the blocking admin marked the account as suspected of being operated by that user, not confirmed, and was perfectly willing to reconsider that assertion when asked about it. It is an unfortunate reality that we almost never really know for an absolute certainty who is operating a particular sock,and mistakes happen, in particular on busy ISP networks. As to the edit you highlight, reverting the tag with the now-verified puppeteer, no, I don't agree with that. It is now well established and widely known whose sock this actually was, and there was nothing wrong with the edit that correctly identified that, and no reason to assume the original blocking admin has some sort of special authority to decline to mark it as such.

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?

   The thing ArbCom must always consider first is the best interest of the project. 99% of all Wikipedia editors are able to contribute without any sort of restrictions on them, if a user gets to the point where a formal sanction is needed to stop them from disrupting the project, that's their own fault. The hope, always, is that when it comes to that point the user or users in question will realize that they've gone too far and will just respect the ban and move on with their lives. If they find not being able to interact with one person, that they clearly don't like anyway, to be too much to bear, that's on them.

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?

   This may not be the answer you were expecting, but the short answer is no. By the time an issue reaches the level of a full arbcom case, the involved parties already know they are causing a problem, and the community has already tried to get them to stop it. I believe previous committees erred in trying to craft elaborate "bespoke" sanctions tailored toward specific users, and am glad these have fallen out of favor with more recent iterations of the committee. The committee's job is to end disruption, not to coddle those causing it. This is not to say that the committee should not also always consider sanctions of differing severity. Sometimes all that is needed is for the disputants to know there are

   discretionary sanctions

   and any admin can block them if they continue disruptive behavior, other times topic bans may be a way to get rid of the disruption while retaining an otherwise decent contributor. Full site bans are a last resort, for those who don't respond to lesser sanctions.

Thankyou for your answers. Note that I did not expect anything really... I tried to keep my questions, especially Q2, fairly vague so as to give you (and the other candidates) scope to answer the way you like. A7V2 (talk) 01:10, 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. Regarding one of the potential socks, you stated "This account was active for three hours ten months ago. That being the case I fail to see any point to an investigation of any kind." Do you think it's important to investigate old sockpuppets so that others may recognize the patterns of new sockpuppets of actively socking users?

   I don't know how many times various people need to tell you to back off from this issue.

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?

   This is all news to me. I don't think I could support a program structured the way you describe. I'm not s huge supporter of paying people to just be basically decent human beings, and ArbCom already carries a heavy workload. If this is as widespread as you describe, some sort of coordinated response is certainly in order.

Question from Dream Focus

2. So at Wikipediocracy [2] you write about an article you nominated for deletion and stated: In a tie-in with the ARS thread, they got wind of it and block voted. I think an arbcom position requires someone to actually look at the evidence and not just state nonsense in an emotional rant. You were the only one who wanted to delete the article. One said redirect and two said keep before being it was put on the ARS's Rescue list. Lightburst rewrites it, then votes Keep. 4 more keep votes appearing, none of them regular ARS members other than myself, and I didn't vote until after it was rewritten to be a legitimate article. I posted two days before voting mentioning the only source I could find, and it not much to it. After the article was properly rescued, rewritten to be a proper article that is, and three days after it was put on the Rescue list to ask for help, Dronebogus then me said it should be kept. The day after that another person said keep, and a day after that another editor showed up and said it should be kept. No one rushed and block voted. Based on this evidence I am wondering, can you do your job and not hold a grudge not just the ARS, but others you have disagreed with in the past?

   see me reply to the above question from Cwmhiraeth.

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.)

   A two-way iban is not an appropriate response to one user harassing another, so I would be open to the idea of repealing it or modifying it to be one-way.

Question from Nosebagbear

2. I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   This is for sure one of trickiest areas of administrating this project. As I mentioned in response to another question above, the truth is that we almost never know for an absolute certainty who is operating an account. I am firm believer in being as transparent as possible, but there are times when actions are taken that cannot be explained in detail. For example, if a banned user has a "tell" that they don't seem to be aware of, pointing it out to them is just going to make them better at socking. Exactly where to draw these lines is a matter of individual judgement, so it follows that sometimes the line is drawn in the wrong place. I can't say there's a specific policy, but I do think

   WP:OPAQUE

   reflect the thought behind it. A largely invisible aspect of what the committee does is reviewing appeals of checkuser blocks, so I've certainly seen what you describe. Being told there is technical evidence that you are a sock without being told exactly what that evidence is would certainly be confusing to an innocent user, who likely has no idea what CU even is. I do think that sometimes some checkusers rely too heavily on the technical evidence and don't give behavioral evidence proper weight. It is entirely possible for an innocent new user to have no idea that they live next door to a notorious troll. I have also seen what looks like compelling behavioral evidence be more or less refuted by CU data, where two users exhibit very simlar behavior but are on different continents. I guess what I'm getting at is that there's no single right way to handle all sock cases.

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position now that we've had some rather involved discussions about
   DS amendments
   and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which was put on the back burner in 2021?

   The two arbs acting as drafters and taking point on this came to the committee as reformers, and I believe the correctly identified an area in serious need of reform. The way DS is structured is so arcane that it can very confusing for those who try to contribute in areas subject to sanctions. That's not good, and I am hopeful that when this moves forward it will result in some very real changes to various aspects of DS, including enforcement. The process is taking a long time, but most hard things do.

Thank you for signing up for another tour of duty. And thank you for giving me hope for change. Atsme 💬 📧 02:49, 28 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?

   To the first part: A good portion of ArbCom cases are content-conduct disputes. The committee should accept such cases on the same basis as other types of cases, when it is clear that the community has tried to handle the issue, yet it persists. While the committee cannot rule directly on the content aspects of such cases, remedies such as discretionary sanctions are designed to quell both aspects. As to the second part: I think the community is actually doing better than it has in the past at resolving things without the need for a full case. Some past iterations of the committee heard dozens of cases each year. That seems unimaginable now, and that's a good thing. Most disputes do not actually need a committee and a full month of deliberations to resolve.`

Banedon

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from George Ho

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 [3]. 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 [4]. It was a rather minor change though and didn't lead to any practical difference I'm aware of. In the other thread [5], 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.

Wugapodes

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from George Ho

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   I think it's generally a well crafted document whose goals, I think, have been misunderstood. The English Wikipedia may be 20 years old, but wikis as a technology are slightly older and many of our communities substantially younger and less resourced. As we move forward, it's important to document cultural knowledge around what makes wikis work. To go off on a bit of a tangent, this was the role of

   MeatBallWiki in the early days of Wikipedia before eventually shifting towards Meta as non-WMF wikis diminished in popularity. Back to the UCoC, it is part of that intellectual history of documenting best practices which largely reiterates insights of the earliest wiki communities. For example, it places emphasis on assuming good faith which was theorized on meatball as early as 2004 according to the history at WP:AGF. The advice on collegiality, mutual support, and good citizenship are likewise foundational principles of how wikis can effectively operate. For example, our tradition of awarding barnstars was introduced by Sunir Shah, founder of meatball, and is a reference to BarnRaising: a phenomenon where a community comes together to build something for another member.

   Where the UCoC innovates, I think, is in documenting social AntiPatterns

   that the modern internet has brought to light. 20 years ago when those essays I mentioned were written, many of the contributors knew each other personally as the internet was still a relatively niche technology, especially globally. Where spam was often the largest concern of these older wikis, we know face coordinated, international misinformation campaigns, we have developed relatively complex bureaucratic structures even at the project level, and we have a user- and reader-base that would be unfathomable in 2001. How do we address these and make clear to other communities the dangers they will face should they follow our lead? What are the lessons we have learned from addressing harassment, propaganda, abuse of power, and spam in the digital age we helped create? How can we generalize them so that smaller wikis can learn from our experiences rather than having to make their own mistakes?

   In that light, I think the document is effective. It's not perfect, I've left feedback on meta at various times, but I believe it shows that the global community has matured and is ready to expand its horizons. I think that's exciting for them, but when all is said and done, we'll still be here writing an encyclopedia.

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?

   I would say the case regarding Fram. While there is a long list of people who were more concretely affected by that case than I was, it marked a turning point in my wiki-editing that has shaped a lot of how I currently view wikipedia and arbitration. Before that point I wrote and edited and engaged in project discussions, but I never felt very invested in the community. When the community divided over the ban and arbitration oversight and the desysop and the whole saga, it put in perspective how much I did care about the direction of the project. I began to understand our contemporary and long term problems, and it prompted me to think about the institutional structures we have that let situations get to that point at all. It's what prompted me to advocate that arbcom take all good-faith administrator conduct cases as a venue of only resort. Maxim has some thoughts against this view which I've been chewing on for a while, and I still wonder whether my advocacy resulted in the best outcomes for recent admin conduct cases. While I still think (absent a non-ArbCom desysop process) the committee should err on taking up community concerns, I've tried to direct my efforts towards getting the community to effectively resolve disputes even (especially?) when they involve administrators. These all tie back to the Fram case for me, as it made me think critically about these problems and how I can contribute to solutions.

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?

   Others have pointed out issues with the framing of this question, and I've previously taken issue with framing ArbCom as like a court. To indulge the analogy though, I would say the level falls somewhere between "preponderance of evidence" and "clear and convincing evidence". I do think the particular sanctions under consideration would move the line between those two ends; for example a warning or admonishment probably needs only a preponderance of evidence while an indefinite site ban needs clear and convincing evidence. These thresholds are used in US civil and administrative law, and generally require that the finder of fact have substantial belief that a given claim is true without requiring the high bar used in criminal trials where fundamental human rights of life and liberty are at stake. ArbCom is not a court of course, and it is certainly not a criminal court, but if we're going to make the court analogy I think looking to civil and administrative courts gives the most accurate examples.

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?

   I'm unfamiliar with how the Arbitration Committee currently handles this, so I can't answer that question without more information. As for how I would do it, it depends on the medium. Some venues have public logs that can be verified, even for deleted materials, and that would probably be the easy case. For communications without public logging, I would consider asking the other party to provide similar records to corroborate and depending on the circumstances ask them for comment on the materials in question. If neither of those can resolve the issue, I would ask WMF Legal to contact relevant service providers and ask for verification of the metadata at least if not the content. In some, perhaps many, cases this may not resolve the issue beyond a reasonable doubt, and in those situations the disputed evidence needs to be considered in light of the totality of evidence. Given all the other communications and evidence, what is the likelihood that the disputed communication is reliable? If it's more likely to be true than not (preponderance of evidence) it should be considered in line with its reliability, otherwise it shouldn't be considered.

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

2. You are a regular on the unofficial Wikipedia Discord server. As you know, due to a recent extension of the outing policy, discussions there can no longer be scrutinised on-wiki. With that in mind, would you care to volunteer any comment on your Discord activity to voters? For example, have you ever been prompted to use your admin tools or other advanced permissions by a discussion there?

   I'm a little fuzzy on what "prompted" is meant to include, but generally yes. I prefer on-wiki communication, but if someone asks me for something in public I'll consider it. I don't take requests by direct message. This applies beyond Discord as well. I view it as just another social media site, and I'm there to crack jokes and hang out. Others don't view it like that, so I am occasionally asked to clean up some copyvios or fix a messed up move, but direct requests are rare. Like other social media sites, people post articles and if I wind up reading it I might fix whatever issues I find. That depends on a lot things like whether I even clicked the link (some channels get a hundred messages in an hour and I'm not looking through every one) or whether I have the time or energy to carry out the task (I'm not always in the mood to do page moves).

4. Along the same lines, if you were elected, to what extent do you think it would be appropriate to discuss arbitration matters on Discord? Conversely, would you recuse from a case if another Discord regular was a party?

   I don't believe it is appropriate to discuss arbitration matters on Discord. There's both practical and ideological reasons to avoid using a social networking app for privileged communication. As for recusal, I think it depends on too many things to give a blanket statement. There are users who I consider friends, and I would recuse from a case where they are a party; this would be the case regardless of what app we use to communicate. There are users I see around but only have incidental interactions with, and I think recusal would depend on the specifics of the case similar to the current recusal process when arbitrators are close to an on-wiki dispute. Then there are users I never see, but I don't think you'd classify them as "regulars" at that point but for the sake of completeness I don't think I'd recuse from a case simply because someone has posted in the Discord before.

6. (Follow-up) I'm sorry, but your answers are self-contradictory in several places. Could you please clarify: if (part of?) Discord is "public", why did you
   WP:ARBCOND
   ), if it is simultaneously treated as an "unofficial" channel that they are barred from discussing on-wiki?

   if (part of?) Discord is "public", why did you support banning mention of it on-wiki? I believe my comment in that discussion stands for itself; my comment had nothing to do with whether the forum was public or private but about incentivizing responsible reporting and minimizing the potential for fabricating evidence. I don't believe that a statement made in a (semi-)public forum is carte blanche to go posting it across the wiki. IRC and Twitter are also public, but our outing policy does not give blanket permission to go digging through them for material to smear editors with on-wiki.

   If it is a place to "crack jokes and hang out", unsuitable for discussion of "privileged" arbitration matters, why is it a suitable place to ask you to use your administrator privileges? Arbitration-related matters are in many cases covered by non-disclosure agreements and it is unclear whether the terms of the non-disclosure agreement and the terms of service for discord are compatible. Even for information not covered by an NDA, arbitrators come across information that may not be public knowledge and the line between acceptable and unacceptable discussion may not always be clear so it is best to avoid discussing arbitration matters in any venue that is not dedicated to that purpose. This is vastly different from the typical situations where administrator tool use is involved. Administrators are broadly not bound by NDAs, and the information required to do most tasks is available to anyone with a web connection. While I have my own views on how to use Discord, other editors see it as a legitimate and serious method of collaboration. I am not going to make their lives actively harder by requiring they jump through hoops to get a page move fixed or some copyvios cleaned up. This isn't even an idiosyncratic interpretation: the CheckUser policy at

   WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, checkusers are authorised to receive contact by other means, like on their talk pages, by email, on IRC or a mailing list, and so on". If CheckUsers (who are bound by similar NDAs as ArbCom members) are able to take requests by whatever means they like, I see no reason why admins should be severely restricted in how they can field requests. As a practical example, I run edit-a-thons for various linguistics organizations and in that role I frequently receive requests to use admin tools in meatspace, over zoom, and I think once by Twitter DM. I wouldn't discuss arbitration matters in those settings, but I would (and do) take requests for admin help. I don't view that as a contradiction, and I don't see why Discord is any different.

   if your interactions on Discord could be grounds for recusal, how are other editors supposed to scrutinise your decision (per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ARBCOND), if it is simultaneously treated as an "unofficial" channel that they are barred from discussing on-wiki? This is a good question that I'd be interested in working with you on to resolve generally. As the close of the Discord discussion you linked

   states, the general treatment of off-wiki venues may be too strict across the board. While I'm against treating different venues differently, I do think we can be more nuanced with how we treat all of them, and while you bring up discord specifically, I think the problematic example you give is a general concern. It might be worthwhile to carve out some exceptions for scrutinizing arbitration committee members or communications as they relate directly to administrator conduct. This would allow proper scrutiny of actions by functionaries while still maintaining general protections against harassment for the bulk of editors. That said, your question relates to me and my Discord communications specifically. Absent a policy change in line with the above, I would suggest that editors with concerns about my off-wiki communications first email me or the full committee with those concerns. If after a brief discussion, the reporting editor still believes I should recuse while I disagree, I will make a note on the case inviting further public comment. Since I will be the one making the request for input on my off-wiki communication, I believe that should avoid issues with the outing policy while allowing proper scrutiny. Thank you for this and I hope we can come to a solution that generalizes beyond my personal commitments.

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

   I'd always listen to Sarah; she was one of the best thinkers we had. That's different from whether I'd agree with her, which I think is the core of your question. At the time would I have agreed with her? Well, in that same case I advocated the opposite position to her, so almost certainly not. Would I agree with her now? I think I'm closer to a yes. As I mentioned in response to George's second question, my thinking has changed since then. My stance on accepting administrator conduct cases has softened somewhat given the views of other editors, and having seen the outcomes of the RexxS case and similar, I think I see more value in Sarah's comment now than I did at the time. For example, in a recent case request regarding ARS following an unpleasant ANI discussion, I recommended that the case be declined quickly so that the emotional rifts had some time to heal rather than further exacerbating the issue. It wasn't an admin conduct case, but I think it demonstrates the kind of empathetic considerations that Sarah wanted to be considered.

Questions from Kudpung

2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?

   Generally, yes, the committee should always evaluate the reliability of particular evidence and seek out verification of it. We should not incentivize fabrication or exaggeration by tying our own hands. An expectation that the committee will take reasonable steps to verify evidence incentivizes complainants and commenters to accurately represent the dispute and avoid hyperbole. Another possible interpretation (based on personal experience reading your comments in various discussions) is whether ArbCom should perform its own investigation into the situation parallel to the evidence presented. I think that's more complicated and perhaps more dangerous than we realize. Committee members are usually outsiders to a dispute so they won't have full context or know precisely where to look. There is risk of selection and confirmation biases on the part of the committee, and the members' investigations may overshadow the more representative evidence presented by editors involved in the dispute. In some cases it may be useful like if participants don't provide much evidence or provide evidence that is mutually exclusive. It can be a good idea to look through the situation or try to figure out what evidence represents what objectively occurred. Arbitrators shouldn't uncritically accept claims, but they shouldn't go looking for things just to confirm their suspicions.

4. It is claimed by some that little or no participation by an accused generally results in a more severe sentence. In the RexxS case, the members' opinions on an accused's right to silence varied from one extreme to the other. Consensus was however, that participation is neither an obligation, nor should it be taken into consideration for the severity of the sentence. Whether or not Arbcom functions according to Case law, or makes up its own rules on a case-by-case basis, in the interests of consistency would it make sense to get some kind of ruling established in policy?

   I think community governance is important and would welcome an amendment to the arbitration policy through the established process to clarify participation requirements. Personally, I don't believe we should try to force people to participate in a process they would rather not be a part of; putting aside philosophical points, we simply have no way to make someone participate in a case so adding a participation requirement to policy would not be useful. For similar reasons, I don't think we should read into a participant's silence. When I get into heated disputes, I try to disengage, and I think that's a healthy strategy. That said, the reality of a fact-finding process is that silence loses control of the narrative. If the evidence is reliable and the adverse party offers no rebuttal, what is a finder of fact to do but rely on the evidence? Testifying in your own defense is dangerous, but so is remaining silent; it's an unfortunate double bind in an already unpleasant process. If the community can come to a consensus on how it wants these considerations balanced, I would support following it and adding it to arbitration policy.

Thank yu for your answers, Wugapodes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheresNoTime

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

   In my opinion, the purpose of the committee is to resolve entrenched conduct issues which threaten the smooth functioning of the project. The ultimate goal is to support the creation and maintenance of an encyclopedia, but within the limited scope of issues that the community has not been able to handle using the typical tools and methods.

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?

   As the only venue that can desysop, the committee should generally accept good faith disputes that the community brings before it. The historical record you bring up is complicated, and I recommend reading Moneytrees' question and linked discussions for additional background on my thoughts. I'll try to summarize my thoughts relatively briefly. Firstly, I think the committee is generally unwilling to accept a case that will not result in sanctions, and members justify this with various arguments. I've pointed to one of Primefac's 2020 ACE answers for an alternate case structure with the aim of incentivizing consensus building and fact finding over sanctioning (seemingly inspired by my comments in the anti-harassment RfC which he pointed out in his closing statement). Secondly, reporting administrator conduct is hard, and you need to piss off very specific people in order for a case to be filed let alone accepted. My comment in discussing the RexxS proposed decision goes into detail on this dynamic, but the crux is that very few people have the mix of social, cultural, and technical skills required to compile the necessary evidence in the right form and in the right venue and then be taken seriously. The more borderline cases, the ones where sanctions less than desysop may actually be incredibly effective, are less likely to get brought up because of all these systemic barriers to reporting. Why waste time navigating the complex process of filing a proper case request with no guarantee that you'll be taken seriously when you could just leave the project? Addressing that issue is, I think, most important for lowering the stakes for administrators.

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.

   I would probably say the case request regarding Hijiri. It struck me as another example of the dynamic I mentioned in my answer to your first question, except this time without the issue of a desysop. I made an extended comment to Kevin that goes into more detail, and while I appreciate that some arbitrators made clear that they took the issue seriously, I wish there was more awareness of how that discussion would affect non-elite editors and their willingness to use community-controlled methods of dispute resolution.

Questions from Moneytrees

2. On August 3rd, you added this section titled "Excised tangent" to L235's talk page. In the section, you criticize him for this comment on this declined case request where he says ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them. I think the core of what you say can be summarized with "expecting everyone initiating a request have sufficient embodied cultural capital to meet an undocumented procedural burden, frankly, protects abusers [...] Declining without comment does not do that, declining for procedural deficiencies does not do that, and declining based on the statement with no mention of the six-year-long block log does not do that. It creates an environment and perception where victims would rather leave our project or seek action from outside the community instead of opening themselves to further harassment in front of a committee that will give more than a cursory glance if they aren't perfect. [...] Countering an institutional culture that protects abusers means we need to be aware of how our expectations and biases contribute to a culture that makes victims feel like their reports will not be worth the time or risk." He pinned this comment but has yet to respond. I believe this directly contradicts previous statements you have made with regards to Arbcom accepting cases, such as your statement at the RexxS case where you say "I share Tony's concern above: I just have really serious concerns that we’re not even trying to de-escalate before going into case requests now", or when you say "We're losing a number of Arbs that I valued for their restraint, and Tony's criticism of an increasingly active arbcom will help keep the balance" at User:Wugapodes/ACE2020. Comparing the RexxS case request and the Hijiri88 case request together, it doesn't make sense to me how things like your statement about ignoring Hijiri88's six year block log gel with statements made before yours like Thryduulf's and Swarm's, where it is pointed out that there are issues outside of the ones PR has brought forward. Could you explain either why you can think these things at the same time, or how your mind has changed since the RexxS case request? Thank you.

   An important distinction for understanding my position is that I believe the duties of the committee and the duties of the community are complimentary but not identical. The arbitration committee offers top-down solutions to problems, and while top-down solutions are effective and attractive, they are not ideal in all situations. Wikipedia is built by a community of editors, and as colleagues we should FosterEachOther so that we may all produce our best work. When interpersonal conflict arises, the most long-lasting resolutions come from community support, deescalation, and reintegration. When my partner drops and breaks (yet another) glass, I help him clean it up and try to get him to do better. Yeah, I might get mad or snarky if I'm having a bad day, but my first resort isn't to kick him out of the house or take him to small claims court for the $5 I lost. Of course, I could, but is that truly going to make anyone's lives better? That said, not everyone is in a healthy or safe relationship, and financial abuse is real, so it is incredibly important that the community keep those options available even if they are not ideal for my particular situation.

   So, with that in mind, to your specific examples and questions. In the RexxS case, you rightly quote my statement where I say that we, as a community, should still try to deescalate situations, but your quotation leaves out the parts of my statement where I recommend that arbcom take the case in order to keep the avenue open probe the additional concerns: That said, while AN might be a good way to de-escalate situations, so might arbitration....administrator accountability at Arbcom should not be predicated on letting bad admins run rampant for years with minimal consequence (this is a general comment not a statement on RexxS)...If the committee has time, they should accept the case and use this as an opportunity to further develop ideas presented last year. I did not recommend that the committee close off the reporting avenue or ignore wider problems. Quite the opposite. I recommended that they take the case and explore new solutions that might address whatever concerns are raised in the course of the dispute resolution. If you still think there is a contradiction between that and what I said to Kevin regarding him declining the Hijiri case, feel free to follow-up on that. I will note that RexxS had not been a party to arbitration or had prior blocks, while Hijiri had two bans placed as the result of previous arbitration. Whatever additional issues were at play, the record supporting those issues were substantially different.

   You ask about how my mind may have changed since that case which is something I've mentioned in response to Gerda's question and (vaguely) in response to George's second question. I'd recommend reading those if you haven't. To summarize and clarify, I still believe the committee should liberally accept administrator conduct complaints, but that doesn't mean we should do so without regard for the human costs of traditional proceedings. As Sarah pointed out in the RexxS case, the context of the case was a global pandemic where RexxS was recovering from an illness; even if accepting the case were correct (which I believe it was), was the situation so dire that it required immediately imposing additional demands on him during his recovery? Was the route the committee chose the only one available, or even the best one in the situation? In that case I recommended two specific possibilities that then-sitting arbitrators had recommended in similar cases (neither was taken up), and even now I wonder if there are potentially more. For example, accepting a case in abeyance and allowing any new issues to be raised at ARCA as a request to continue the proceedings. This is similar to xeno's suggestion that I mentioned and something we do when the party resigns or retires. There's no reason that our processes must lack humanity. We can make new tools to better address the situations and people before us.

   Lastly you bring up my rationales in ACE2020, specifically that I would support someone whose positions I apparently disagree with. Put simply, I do not want a committee that is uniform in its opinions. To me, a committee that is not heterodox is bad because it means members will not need to discuss, negotiate, or reconsider their opinions as deeply. By having members with opposite views, I believe members will have better, deeper discussions which will hopefully result in better, more nuanced decisions. At a higher level, I believe that the committee should represent the diversity of views within the community, not uniformly represent the views of the majority of the community. My opinions are not identical with the community at large, and so if I want a committee that represents community diversity, I cannot vote only for candidates whose opinions are the same as mine. So ultimately, it is part of tactical voting strategy. ArbCom elections incentivize tactical voting, and if you read voter guides you'll see the common strategy to support 8 and oppose the rest, but there are other tactics. My criteria do not stop at analyzing candidates, I also consider how candidates will work together and the composition of the committee as a whole. Ultimately we're composing a committee, not a random assemblage of individuals, and so we should consider how good a given set of individuals are, not just each individual in a vacuum.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I had read the rest of what you said about accepting the RexxS case, but still thought that the individual comment at the beginning didn't make much sense given things you had said previously and moving forward; I'll send you a few more specific reasons why I think this way later. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 23:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Probably. It's unfortunate, but we have thousands of editors who manage to never get an ArbCom IBAN. If not being allowed to get into fights anymore is so strict a restriction that someone chooses to leave the project over it, then that's their choice.

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?

   Yes, but what often gets lost when discussing disruptive-but-productive editors are the dozens or hundreds of editors who get bullied off the site bwfore a case gets to ArbCom. We should work to identify where editors work well without disruption and let them keep working there, but we also need to consider the risk of too-lax sanctions. Repeat behavior could cause a lot of damage or chase lots of editors away before it makes it to ArbCom again, and that's bad. A case is at ArbCom because of disruption, and the ultimate goal is to put a stop to it. Arbitration is not therapy, and if an editor is making it impossible for others to do work on the project, we need to do what's best for everyone.

   Apologies for any typos. I'm travelling for the Thanksgiving holiday and am answering from my phone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 04:07, 23 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?

   My position is that investigating sock puppetry is important, and so is documenting patterns of known sock masters, but we should avoid off-handed accusations and mobbing. There's always the risk that someone innocent is on the other side and getting harassed for no apparent reason with accusations they cannot disprove, so we either need to be really sure or the disruption needs to be bad. For really old cases, it can be hard to be sure since checkuser data is not retained for long. It is probably better to focus on recent disruption and potential current socks. I think the editors at SPI do a good job of considering those things which is why I usually refer editors there over making accusations in other venues.

   Sorry for any typos. I'm travelling and answering from my phone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   This is a really interesting idea! I'm not sure this is something for ArbCom, but I'd be happy to talk with you about how you can develop into a proposal if you get in touch on my talk page or by email. The reason I'm not sure this is a job for ArbCom is that paid editing is covered in our terms of service, and violations of the TOS are usually handled by WMF Legal. I think they'd do a more effective job by pursuing legal consequences that punish undisclosed paid editing much more severely than ArbCom could. But I like the idea and am willing to help in whatever role I can!

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.)

   I'm not a fan of two-way IBANs for one-way disruption. I've seen arguments that IBANs should be "two-way or no way", and I think it misses the point. The main problem with one-way IBANs is that they can lead to baiting and more disruption. That's bad, but it also should be something we think about from the start. Some editors don't need an IBAN to avoid people they don't like, and if the problem is that someone has a favorite person to pick on, a one-way IBAN should be fine. If one editor seems vindictive or is feeding into problems to make the other look bad, then there's a risk that a one-way IBAN will be gamed. It's not that one kind works and the other doesn't, they're different tools for different problems.

   To your questions about appeals, there's a lot of "if"s so I'm not sure I fully grasp the scenario. I will say that I don't think indefinite means permanent, and if a sanction is only serving to harm someone's reputation, we should consider repealing it. Stale sanctions are not benign because reputation and trust are important for effective collaboration. Given how time consuming it can be to reimpose sanctions if we're wrong, we should not repeal sanctions lightly, but neither should we let useless sanctions weigh on editors who have moved on.

Question from Nosebagbear

2. I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   1) The technical answer is no; to my knowledge there's no policy that requires we keep secret information which is publicly available. But policy is more than an {{

   conditional unblocks

   that would keep the editor away from the areas they (or the sock master) had been disrupting? In general though, the problem here is that a "viable appeal" is just out of the realm of expertise for most newbies that get duck blocked, and so rather than trying to make every non-expert user competent in our bureaucracy, we should reconsider "viable" in light of that.

   4) That is a problem, yes, though one that I think is broader than just sock blocks. It's why I think we ought to consider conditional unblocks or asking about plausible explanations for behavior without giving away what the behavior was. Conditional unblocks allow us to side-step the issue of whether they're innocent or not---we'll let them edit if they stay away from the area that the supposed sock master was disruptive in. More involved questioning helps us gauge the likelihood of innocence without needing the blocked editor to have tons of evidence and a working knowledge of our bureaucracy---things like "why are you interested in X topic?" or "What information were you looking for when you were reading project page Y?" Editors should not be placed in a catch-22 where they either stay blocked or admit to something they didn't do, and while our current structures can lead to that, we already have the tools to start building out an alternative.

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position after the rather involved discussions about
   DS amendments
   and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which were put on the back burner in 2021?

   Well, I only felt compelled to give

   our existing policies

   give second-mover advantage to administrators who overturn sanctions. When there is an entrenched dispute with implications for the health and safety of the public (like COVID, BLPs, or sectarian conflict) we should not have the default state be letting people continue with their disruption just to live up to some bureaucratic principles that have repeatedly failed to stop disruption in the first place. The first mover advantage introduces new problems, yes, but they are easier to fix. Instead of blanket prohibition on unilateral repeals or modifications, allowing them after a moritorium limits the potential damage of wheel warring while reducing the bureaucracy of modifications or repeals years later. The close didn't really go into this, and I haven't heard anything new out of the process, but reading the close and skimming the discussion, that's where my head's at.

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?

   Nosebagbear had a 4-part question so I won't tattle to electcom if you don't. To answer your second question first—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?—at

   the June 2020 anti-harassment RfC I and others threw around the idea of training sessions for volunteers in mediation and de-escalation. It's kind of scattered across multiple threads, but if you "ctrl+f" for "training" you'll find the important bits. The main idea is that the WMF fund recurrent open workshops on mediation and dispute resolution for editors as part of community development. This would empower editors with the tools needed to prevent and resolve protracted disputes before they get to ANI or ARBCOM. Beyond that, the most effective solution I've seen is simply for those of us not involved to work harder. Many times the root of the problem is that the dispute or thread has become so toxic that no one wants to step in and stop it. Why paint a target on my back, take on a bunch of paperwork, and get yelled at for days (or months) when I could just ignore the flame war? Completely rational and a thought process I've had, but that's the mindset that leads to dysfunctional ANI threads and eventual arbitration. Preventing these disputes from festering requires breaking the ConflictCycle

   by intervening even when it's not the popular thing to do. That's easier said than done—if de-escalation were easier we wouldn't need arbcom—but absent formal training in mediation and dispute resolution, we just need to be more proactive in speaking up when we see things getting off-track There are some editors who I've seen doing this to great effect, so I'm hopeful.

   Now to your first question: how should ArbCom decide when it is necessary to accept a case that is a combination content-conduct dispute? I think the two main questions are (1) has the community tried and failed to resolve the conduct dispute and (2) is the disruptive conduct preventing the development of consensus on the content question? Similar to what I was saying in the previous paragraph, a content question can lead to disruptive conduct that prevents uninvolved editors from participating. This can lead to false consensus, further disruption, and general instability for readers. If the community can handle that, all the better, but often the content question can distract from the actual conduct problems leading to a lot of no consensus results even when the conduct issues are pretty obvious. In these cases it is useful for arbcom to wade into the conduct issue and resolve the core disruption so that other, non-disruptive editors can feel comfortable wading into the question and building consensus through our normal processes.

Donald Albury

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from George Ho

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   My hope is that we on enwiki can protect the integrity of enwiki while maintaining an acceptable level of civility in the community. If the Foundation ever decides to intervene in enwiki to enforce the UCoC, then the project is in trouble, whether that is because we, as a community, have failed to maintain an acceptable level of civility, or because the Foundation is overreaching.

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?

   No particular case sticks out in my mind. I have seen editors that I thought were good contributors get into trouble, sometimes de-sysoped, for reasons I was not always clear about. I do realize that good editors, through baiting or mounting frustration, can become abusive towards other editors. Civility must be maintained, but I sometimes wish that more could be done to protect productive users from provocations before their patience wears out.

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?

   ARBCOM is not a court of law, and no user's life, liberty or property is at risk (well, maybe a paid editor's income, but that is another issue). A

   greatest good for the greatest number

   , i.e., the risk of harm to the project from a wrong assessment in one direction vs. the risk of harm to a user from a wrong assessment in the other direction. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.

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?

   I have not researched how the ARBCOM currently deals with off-wiki evidence. Given the nature of evidence in electronic form, I think the use of such evidence depends heavily on the reputation/reliability of the source. Context and supporting evidence are also important in evaluating such evidence.

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

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

   Slim Virgin gave me very helpful advice when I was a novice editor. Our paths did not cross much in more recent years, but I would be ready to listen to and consider any advice she might offer me. My understanding of the policies, guidelines and functioning of Wikipedia have deepened over the years, and I do not know if she and I would agree on all specifics now, but I still would carefully consider her thoughts.

Question from The Most Comfortable Chair

2. What motivated you to put forward your candidacy this time?

   I have toyed with the idea of running over the years, but for one reason or another hesitated. This year I saw the notice in AN that there were only 60 hours left for nominations, and saw there were only three candidates at the time. I figured that the community deserved to have more candidates running than available seats, and so offered myself. If I am selected, I hope I can contribute to the community for the year or two I would serve on ARBCOM. If there are eight candidates who are more qualified who are selected ahead of me, I figure that is a win for the community.

Question from TheresNoTime

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

   To deal with behavior problems that the community has been unsuccessful in controlling through less formal mechanisms, including administrators who are harming the project through inappropriate use of their position.

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?

   Off hand, I don't have any thoughts about that. If I am selected to serve, I wish to view each case on its merits.

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.

   I stopped following individual cases a while back. While I might look at an open case if I run across some reference to it, I don't follow cases I have to which no connection.

2. 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 and taking those comments into consideration?

   I stopped following ARBCOM cases and ANI discussions where I don't have a dog in the fight precisely because of the sheer volumn of comments. The committee has to decide whether evidence offered is credible and relevant.

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 by default almost the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers?

   Silence is not an admission of guilt, but a refusal to defend oneself against charges can reasonably lead to a restriction of editing prividges and access to tools until the editor agrees to engage with the committee and has successfully defended themself. I also think the committee may set conditions of when and how the editor may return to defend themself.

Thank you for your answers, Donald. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Extraordinary Writ

2. What sort of on-wiki experience do you have in resolving disputes (the Committee's primary function)?

   I disagree that the Committee's primary function is resolving disputes. The Committee's function is to deal with behavior that is disruptive to the project, and which the community has been unable to control. Disputes about content, policy, guidelines, and behavior are supposed to be resolved by consensus. Consensus may be reached on talk pages, in Requests for Comment, or on various project pages and noticeboards. It is only when dispute resolution is disrupted by editor behavior, and the community has not been able to control that disruptive behavior, that the Committee may take up the case. That said, I do have in mind a case this year that took a while to resolve, but, as it involves edits to three user talk pages, an article and its talk page, and at least two project pages, over a two or three month period, I need a little time to assemble the links in a coherent manner. The case I had in mind involved less input from me than I remembered, and probably is not what you were looking for. In summary, an edit war at Gaur involved several people over a couple of months. I did try to get the most involved editors to stop the edit war, but my patience with the situation was a bit longer than some other admins, and the edit war ended with the indefinite block of one of the participants. A timeline of the edit war is at User:Donald Albury/Gaur edit war. 17:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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?

   In my opinion, the function of the Arbitration Committee should be to reduce disruption as much as possible to enable the community to get on with the business of building an encyclopedia. As the purpose of any sanctions should be to prevent future disruption, the committee has to predict the effect of such sanctions on everyone involved, including the whole of the community. For the health of the community, disruptive behavior must be controlled, and a mutual IBAN is one tool for doing that. If a user does quit editing because they are subject to an IBAN (and one can never be certain that is the only reason they quit), then the loss of any future contributions they may have made will be a loss to the community. On the other hand, allowing the editors to continue to interact disruptively with each other would also be a net loss for Wikipedia, not only in the articles the two fight over, but in the perception that would be sent that there an no serious consequences to interacting disruptively.

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?

   Retention of an editor is not always the best outcome. If an editor's behavior to date makes it appear that their behavior in the future will continue to be disruptive to Wikipedia, then appropriate sanctions need to be imposed. In deciding to ban an editor, or in weighing the risk that an editor will quit editing in response to sanctions imposed, then the loss of potentional improvement to the encyclopedia has to be weighted against the potential for further disruption. Quantity and quality of edits does not excuse disruptive behavior. If sanctions can largely prevent future disruption while allowing an editor to productively edit, then Wikipedia will benefit. In general, reducing disruptive behavior and thereby (hopefully) raising the level of civility in Wikipedia should help with editor retention overall.

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 01:06, 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?

   I do not see what this has to do with the Arbitration Committee. While ARBCOM (and individual admins) can block socks they have identified, formal sockpuppet investigations are conducted at

   Wikipedia:Duck

   ) may help identify a sock, I don't see the point of investigating an account that had not been used in nine months and had been blocked for six months. I think there is plenty for SPI to do dealing with active potential socks.

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 to say that your statement was initially hard for me to process. You are describing paid meat-puppetry. Meat-puppetry and undisclosed paid editing are serious problems for Wikipedia. I wonder, though, how well the interests of whoever is paying the meat puppets is served. Meat puppets are often suspected, and their comments/!votes tend to be discounted. Discussions that are important enough to draw a number of participants should be closed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, and not on just the number of !votes. Wikipedia does need to attract and retain editors that are as representative of the global English-speaking population as possible, but I think it would be a mistake to pay editors to not be meat-puppets in pursuit of that goal. The community is uncomfortable with paying editors in any manner. See the discussion earlier this year about a contest that awarded gift certificates for adding images to Wikipedia, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#Image competition? Cases involving meat-puppetry and undisclosed paid editing can come before the Arbitration Committee, if the community has not successfully dealt with them more informally. Devising and implementing programs to attract and retain editors, including paying people to edit, or programs to provide training to new editors, is beyond the purview of the Arbitration Committee.

Oh, wow. I did not know about the complications to the image competition. Thank you for sharing it with me. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Reward board has been less of a problem, although that could be due to low activity more than anything else.--16:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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.)

   IBANs, like other sanctions, should be designed to prevent future disruption to the project. If, in the judgement of the committee, the past behavior of two editors in a dispute predicts that a one-way IBAN will be sufficient to prevent future disruption, then the one-way is appropriate. I have seem comments to the effect that a one-way IBAN is effectively a two-way ban, because if the second editor uses the existence of the IBAN to gain advantage over the first editor, then the second editor may be sanctioned to prevent further disruption. As for your second question, I am confused. Do you know of a case where an editor who was being hounded was placed under a one-way IBAN and the editor who was harrassing the first editor was not? Or are you asking about a case in which an editor who has not been placed under an IBAN is harrassing an editor who is banned from interacting with them?

It wasn't really a "second question", but I think you misread me; the hounded user (me) was placed under a topic ban, but since no evidence of disruption on the part of the hounding party was presented other demonstrating the fact of the hounding, they were not placed under a similar topic ban until the community stepped in about six months later. Honestly, I did not really know how arbitration worked (a fact several users, not just the one who was sanctioned, seemed to want to take advantage of): I assumed that the committee would disregard as tainted evidence presented by someone who was clearly hounding one of the parties to the dispute, and so did not seek to demonstrate any further disruption on their part beyond hounding, until after the proposed decision had been posted and it was too late. So they were left, temporarily, free to undo my earlier edits to that topic area (to which they had originally followed me), with me unable to report them publicly. At this point, six years on, the only effectiveness the IBAN has now, as far as I can see, is that every few months/weeks (or every few days, if I'm especially active -- the last time it happened was three days ago) someone says out of the blue "Hijiri88 has an IBAN" as a chilling effect to force me out of a discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above appears to have crossed a line. I apologize for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear

2. I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   This is a tough question that I have had to think about for a while. I'll try to answer your points. 1) I am not aware of a policy that requires sharing of information. Not revealing behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry has been practice for a long time, which implies at least a lack of consensus to require disclosure of that information. Until such time as the community developes a consensus that such information should be revealed, I see no reason to force disclosure. 2) As I have said elsewhere, we are not depriving anyone of life, liberty or property when we sanction them, so I don't see a moral problem in blocking someone based on non-public information. 3) Good point. Maybe there could be a process for appealing blocks based on non-public evidence, similar to reviews of closed discussions, with other admins reviewing the evidence. 4) Is there evidence that this is a significant problem? I have no idea how many blocks for sockpuppeting are false positives, but I hope they are small. And I don't see much incentive for falsely admitting to sockpuppeting.

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position about ArbCom finally following through with
   DS amendments
   and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which was put on the back burner in 2021?

   I do not know what the committee has done on drafting changes. I do know that I favor measures that help protect Wikipedia from behavior that seriously disrupts adherence to the five pillars and the process of reaching consensus. We need sufficiently robust processes to control disruption. Some form of Discretionary Sanctions, or other processes that produce equivalent results, is almost certainly needed. I will note that I have not been involved in any areas covered by Discretionary Seactions, other than one or two BLPs (I can think of one who is still living, off hand).

Thank you for volunteering, and for your response to my question.

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?

   ArbCom has to determine that the conduct issues in a dispute are unlikely to be resolved by other processes, and that those conduct issues could be resolved by methods available to the committee. As for dealing with the conduct issues in disputes short of ArbCom, perhaps a venue with more structure than ANI and a wider scope than AE might help, if the community would accept adding another layer to the process.

Opabinia regalis

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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?

   I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. But my layperson's understanding of "burden of proof" - at least as it's used in the US - is that it's deeply entwined with the adversarial nature of the legal system. There's well-defined sides making specific claims, and here's a way of assigning responsibilities for those claims. Although some Wikipedia arbitration cases do have a sort of de-facto "defendant", many don't. And as much as the process may fall short of the ideal, when it's at its best it's a sort of collaborative fact-finding exercise, and takes some inspiration from inquisitorial approaches.

   This reflects the biases of my own background, but what I've found more useful in looking at wiki-related evidence is the concept of falsifiability and what that looks like in practice. We may have some evidence in favor of a claim, but have we made a specific effort to look for and consider evidence against it? What's the best argument against a particular conclusion? What's the best alternative explanation for what you see, and can you find evidence against that alternative? I think deliberately stress-testing your beliefs in this way is a good habit. It has a similar effect to the "burden of proof" line of thought, suggesting that stronger evidence should be expected for stronger sanctions. But I think it's more likely to produce good results than having a group of mostly laypeople, some of whom may not even be in a country that uses a system like this, trying to apply an amateur understanding of a legal concept outside of its domain. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I don't think there's any single mechanism that would work here in all cases. I can't comment on arbcom's current practices, but when I was on the committee the joe job problem definitely came up a lot. Sometimes it's easy: if something happened on IRC, for example, many others (including arbs) might be able to verify from their own logs. In some cases it's appropriate to just ask the person allegedly responsible if it's authentic, if they really sent that email or if they can supply their own copies of logs. Sometimes there's strong technical evidence if you know where to look. My experience was that people sending fake evidence were usually not that sophisticated about it. A harder problem was authentic evidence of uncertain authorship - is that twitter/reddit/facebook/etc account really run by so-and-so? On Wikipedia we have extremely limited investigative powers outside of the WMF ecosystem, so this often has to rely on circumstantial evidence. This ends up being more or less a risk calculation: what's the risk of getting it wrong compared to the risk of failing to act, and who bears the brunt of that risk? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

2. In your statement, you mention taking a sabbatical. I think all Wikipedians should take breaks from editing every now and again to recharge their batteries and see what else is going on the world, so they don't get burned out. How does that reconcile with being on the Arbitration Committee, where the workload is sufficient (according to Barkeep49's notes) to require regular participation?

   Ha, I wish I took a proper sabbatical! I think if we get a second pandemic distracting people from Wikipedia, we'll probably all be trying to avoid being eaten by zombies or something and won't be worried about a website.

   I know you know this, but for the benefit of the tape: I think I'm one of the project's champion break-takers. I was inactive from mid 2007 to 2015, long enough that I had to re-run RfA. And then I was also inactive through 2020, though that was the same reason everyone's 2020 plans got screwed up. Breaks are good, especially long enough to get a little mental distance from whatever the drama of the day was when you left. Obviously you can't take an eight-year break on arbcom, but a two-year term is still a long time in a job with a pretty high historical burnout risk, and people should be taking breaks of days to weeks. You wouldn't want to do your real job for two years straight with no vacations or weekends or holidays either. That's why the committee size builds in a little slack, and one reason why dropping down to 13 didn't work out.

   I'll be honest, I'm not claiming that if I were elected I'd be the arb on the top of the activity list. But as far as I can tell the workload hasn't changed a huge amount since I was on the committee and I can do that level. I would probably take more official breaks - I very rarely listed myself as "inactive" before, because I figured that doing a little bit of work or doing it late was better than nothing. In retrospect I think that was the wrong strategy and was actually less efficient, because it stops you from really taking a mental rest and makes the activity bookkeeping harder. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheresNoTime

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

   I assume this isn't a "copy and paste from

   WP:ARBPOL" question ;) So to go with the pithy version, arbcom is there to soak up some of the suckitude so everybody else can get on with their core purpose of writing an encyclopedia. That's the point of having a last-gasp binding decision-maker to handle conduct disputes. I don't know that I'd call the other responsibilities outside of public cases "non-core", but it's undeniably a path-dependent historical result that they're all handled by the same group. Appeals, functionary appointments, auditing, handling private material, and so on are all important to the successful functioning of the project too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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?

   That's interesting, I hadn't seen that summary before! To get started I voted against at least two of the desysops on that list, so I may have been less... desysoppy? ... than the average arb. Of course sanctions aren't inevitable, but a case wouldn't be accepted if they weren't at least plausible. I also think there's a pretty high barrier to filing a case - it's not something people do for fun or because they don't have anything better to do for the next six weeks. That's even more true when it's directly against a colleague, as in many cases fundamentally about admin conduct as opposed to more general disputes that happen to involve admins.

   I'm surprised to see that the "review" remedy from the GiantSnowman case hasn't been tried more often since then, since (AFAIK) it seems to have worked out fairly well. In that instance the parties were actively engaged with the case, which certainly helped build confidence that the remedy was worth trying. In several of the more recent cases the primary party didn't participate, or did so only minimally, which I think is a trend that bears further examination. A "dispute resolution" mechanism that is so exhausting or demoralizing that people just refuse to take part in it isn't very healthy or satisfying. It also doesn't really give the community confidence in the effectiveness of our admin-accountability processes, and may even deter people from filing legitimate cases.

   Another thing I've seen mentioned - unfortunately, I forget where - is that a number of the more recent desysop remedies have involved admins who aren't American. Since obviously there's some baked-in systemic bias in Wikipedia's culture, it's worth giving some consideration to the origin of that pattern. The numbers are small enough that it could well be a fluke, but it's not hard to imagine that we're more likely to interpret someone's behavior as problematic if they're not from the locally dominant cultural background.

   As for what to do about that, I'm not sure. To mitigate the effect of spending a long time under a community microscope, an idea that comes to mind is a mini-case format for cases primarily about a single individual or self-contained event: seven days total, 500 words per person for evidence plus desired outcome, brief narrative decision written like the closing statement of a big RfC rather than voted on piecemeal. But I'm not sure if that would feel like getting it over with or like getting railroaded. Everyone says cases are too verbose and drag on too long, until they're in one and then they need extensions. Something I suggested in my last term but never followed up on is dropping the "proposed proposed decision" style of workshopping in favor of gathering responses to simple goal-directed questions (eg "What outcome to you hope to get from this case? What will you do differently after the case? What do you want others to do differently?"). More conservatively, keep a tight leash on cases, especially workshops, and make sure people who aren't really involved aren't taking up all the conversational space. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   I specifically avoided going down the drama rabbit hole this year, so I'm going to have a think on this one first. Stay tuned! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I looked into it and, dare I say it, it seems like this has been a relatively low-drama year. I'm not going to nitpick the details of the RexxS case, which seems to have been the most controversial case decision this year, but there's one aspect of it that I think was a significant error: removing the filer as a party to the case. That might be OK if it's a purely procedural filing, or if there's private information about a really unusual situation, but this looks like a regular old case about a regular old dispute. I have nothing against the filer, who I'm not very familiar with but who I've seen around saying sensible things - but if I'd been on the other side of that case and my opponent in a dispute was excused before any evidence was in, I'd have a really hard time trusting the rest of the case to be fair. I imagine this is one of those good-intentions problems - some arbs wanted to make sure the evidence covered admin conduct and not the filer's specific issue, and some thought that being a case party kind of sucks and they should let people off the hook when they can, and a few emails later nobody had thought about what that looks like from the other side. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from George Ho

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   I haven't been involved in discussions on this, and I know it's annoying for people to backseat-drive with criticism of something they didn't offer to help with. I do think the idea is good - codes of conduct are very much in fashion these days, and it's increasingly an expectation that projects and organizations will have one. If Wikipedia had been founded five years ago instead of 20, we'd already have one and

   WP:AGF isn't labeled a "policy", because it's impossible to enforce what assumptions people are making, but there it is in the UCoC. Listing things like "repeated mockery" as if that isn't just going to be, well, repeatedly mocked. The entire "psychological manipulation" section, which identifies a genuinely harmful behavior and yet will almost exclusively be cited by trolls, ironically probably making it harder for actual victims to get their concerns taken seriously.

   3) The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people - reads like someone saw the Stephen Colbert "colorblind" bit and thought it was serious.

   Also, I think the UCoC document is too long, but I decided not to call the kettle black :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. You have served as part of the ArbCom for a long while. Which ArbCom cases have affected you the most personally as a Wikipedian, even when you agree or disagree with the decisions made, and why?

   As far as my non-arb wikilife, I've been lucky enough to mostly avoid cases - my editing interests tend to be obscure areas that don't attract too much dispute. The only case I've participated in (though not as a party) was GMOs in 2015.

   I guess probably everyone who was around for the Fram case and various related events would point to that, which was a virtually unprecedented level of community upset, and a major challenge as an arb to keep up with events as they unfolded and try to navigate conflicting priorities to come to a resolution. Unfortunately this all occurred when I was in the middle of a big real-life project so I had less time to devote to it than I would've liked, but I think the arbs who took a more active public role in those events did a good job. Another one that stuck with me, in that it changed some of my thinking around sanctions structure, was the first Magioladitis case, which I drafted, and which was so ineffective we had another case a few months later. I started out thinking that finely crafted sanctions narrowly circumscribing the area of conflict would be fairer than broad ones. This case, and other early events in my first term, convinced me that we'll have more success with broader and more standardized sanctions that are less likely to create conflicts about boundary-testing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung

2. 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 and taking those comments into consideration?

   I think arbcom and ANI have this much in common: the most consistently useful comments come from people who are familiar with the subject and the dispute, but aren't directly involved in it. The least useful comments come from people who aren't familiar with the subject but need to stick their oar in anyway. Unfortunately the former are rare and the latter are a dime a dozen.

   I think this is a bigger problem at ANI where pile-ons can have a direct effect on the conclusion reached. I'd say ANI is long overdue for some structural rethinking, and is probably a better target for the reform-minded than arbcom due to its higher volume. Arbcom gets a lot of attention but ANI has a much bigger effect on most people's routine wiki work.

   Arbcom has less risk of being influenced by pile-ons and semi-relevant commentary because the panel of people making the decisions is predetermined, so people self-selecting in or out of making comments doesn't directly impact the result. My personal practice was to read pretty much everything, and quietly ignore whatever wasn't useful. I realized over time that this can cause some consternation - people don't have real-time feedback on what the arbs aren't taking into account, so they'd see something crazy posted and feel the need to respond, refute, rebut, etc. when a lot of times this wasn't necessary. I've come around to wanting more active moderation of commentary in cases to mitigate this effect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 by default almost the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers?

   Of course not - I think there's an element of Betteridge's law of headlines here :) I think it's more likely a combination of hurt feelings, burnout, a sense of futility, and a decision that the whole mess isn't worth the effort and unpleasantness involved. Obviously this is a volunteer project and people can stop volunteering whenever they want - see an earlier question about my enthusiasm for taking breaks. But I think it's really concerning that our top-level dispute resolution process is apparently so unpleasant (or time-consuming, or perceived to be unfair) that it's common to just decide not to participate in it. That's something I think we should really prioritize as a community in the next year.

   As for sanctions, well, a case is supposed to be about settling disputes, not determining guilt. Arbcom can only make decisions about how to settle the dispute based on the evidence it has, so it's maybe inevitable that not hearing from one of the major participants might end up biasing the result in favor of those who did submit evidence. It's always in someone's favor to give their view of events, and they're the only ones who can really speak to their own motivations and state of mind. But the fact that someone didn't participate shouldn't "count against them", so to speak. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers, Opabinia regalis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikehawk10

's Q1. This is absolutely not a request to reexamine any former Arbcom cases, or even to ask you how you would have voted on them - I never ask candidates how they would have voted on other cases:

2. It's sometimes been suggested that Arbcom simply totals up the consensus of the plaintiff and non involved commenters, rubber stamps it, and applies the punishment that the participants demanded, ignoring any 3rd party comments in the accused's defence. Indeed, as part of a vast, long, and otherwise exemplary voluntary service, the issue(s) under prosecution might not represent a consistent and damaging pattern of abuse of user privileges after all. Some past and present members of the Committee are however quite adamant that it is not their role to be investigative and verify the veracity of the claims or the true motivations of those clambouring for harsh justice. This could (and does appear to) have very negative consequences for an accused party who after his/her initial statement has not commented further, (Cf. e.g. RexxS) and misguidedly placed his/her confidence in the Committee to make an equitable judgement.

What's your stance on this hypothetical investigatory role of the Committee?

1. Well, I think you touched on two different kinds of investigations here. One is investigating the truth of claims presented as evidence in cases, which I think everyone agrees is part of the committee's role. The other is seeking out additional evidence not presented in a case. I think the latter instance of arbs developing their own evidence has been more controversial and I know there's been disputes over this in the past, where parties felt they didn't get a chance to properly respond to evidence that arbs' individual research efforts turned up. Obviously there's no sharp dividing line - for example, I think everyone on the committee quickly figures out that you can't take the description of an isolated diff at face value and should read the whole thread it was part of, and the links within the thread, even if none of it was explicitly presented as case evidence. And I think it's good for arbs to use the questions section to ask about things you happened to come across in the course of reviewing the evidence, or pieces of evidence you don't understand. But if an arb is doing a lot of their own research then it's probably more appropriate to recuse and present evidence as a participant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your answer Opabinia regalis. Ironically, as far as I can make out, the general consensus among past and present Arbs is that they do not consider examination to be part of their role, even if some comments are ostensibly mendacious or purely vindictive. So thank you again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Cwmhiraeth

2. As a former member of ArbCom, did you ever take part in a case in which you probably should have recused yourself?

   I don't think so. Because I participated in the GMO case, I've always recused from requests related to it, even though I don't really edit in that area these days. If I'd been around for the Medicine case I would've recused and will from any follow-ups. I don't recall any other examples of cases running up against my interests and activities. Mostly the opposite, topics and disputes I had no idea even existed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from wbm1058

2. Should ArbCom-appointed checkusers be allowed to unilaterally tag a user as a likely sockpuppet of another user, point to the (perhaps years-old) sockpuppet investigation of the alleged sockpuppeteer, and then block the accused new user based on only behavioral evidence (i.e. with non-confirming technical evidence), without first conducting a community examination of the alleged behavioral connection and gaining a community consensus to block? Indeed, per this example, "Undid revision 1055911694 by xxxxx leave this for User:yyyy" the impression given by that edit summary is that the decision is only to be made by the accusing checkuser admin – who has yet to open a formal discussion on the matter. Are you OK with that?

   CU isn't an exact science. Ideally we'll get the paperwork cleaned up if there's a mistake, especially if there are identifiable people involved, but being mistaken for a different banned user socking is one of the occupational hazards of being a banned user socking. It's polite to wait for the original CU, but certainly not mandatory if new information comes up. I'm not a CU so can't look myself.

   But, isn't this Wikipediocracy drama? No thanks, I don't want to import that stuff here - isn't the flow of drama supposed to be the other way around? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   "Net positive" is an inherently empirical judgment that's impossible to make from an isolated hypothetical. If someone is persistently unable or unwilling to participate without behaving in ways the community finds disruptive, then yes, it's a benefit to the project if they find something else to do. Our most important resource is volunteer time and if it takes too much of it to deal with one person's behavior, they need to move on. Sometimes, if an otherwise productive editor is unwilling to work under a specific restriction, it's a sign that the restriction itself is problematic. If someone is really having a problem following a sanction it's worth a second look at the issue. But if you've done your due diligence and are convinced the sanction was needed, and the person still isn't willing to stick to those conditions, sounds like it's time for them to take a break.

   Interaction bans in particular are interesting because we do this "socially", but most sites have mute/ignore lists for this kind of interpersonal issue. Here you can mute someone's notifications and take their talk page off your watchlist (and should if you're ibanned, or even heading that way) but there's no technical enforcement of an iban as a sanction. Maybe a user script that warns you if someone you're avoiding has recently edited a page or posted in a thread would be useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Editor retention: yes and no. On the one hand, nobody's irreplaceable. (Good thing too, I'd charge a lot more than $0 per hour to be the single individual responsible for holding a top-ten website together!) On the other hand, committed long-term volunteers don't grow on trees; we know we have a hard time recruiting editors and getting them through the early learning curve. Failing to take retention into account seems not only dismissive of someone's contributions, but also kind of wasteful. On the third hand (what, you don't have three?) focusing too narrowly on retention of one editor risks overlooking the effects of their behavior on third parties, which are important to keep in mind but often the least visible in dispute-resolution processes. But in general, if there's two equally reasonable options for restrictions and the editor is more comfortable with one than the other, why not give it a try? Interaction bans and topic bans sometimes trade off in this way, for example. Or topic bans (socially enforced) compared to partial blocks (technically enforced).

   I'm not quite sure what you mean by "type of editor", but my instinct is to say no, this isn't relevant. If that means, say, someone who focuses on writing new articles compared to someone who focuses on technical work, that might play into what sanctions make most sense - maybe fine-grained topic bans are hard to enforce in technical areas not many admins understand well, for example. But it wouldn't affect my thinking about retention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. For Q2 I was deliberately vague about "types of editors" though the examples you give are the kind of "types" I had in mind. A7V2 (talk) 01:02, 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?

   The CU data was stale at the time and hasn't magically gotten any fresher since then, so this was correctly declined and I don't know what further investigation you're expecting. And while I didn't follow that case or its aftermath closely at the time, even I know you've been asked not to keep revisiting this issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   (responding to below, but in the box): This is a strange choice for you to cite as an example for the general case, considering the background. In any event, I don't think it's possible to have a general answer other than "it depends". In the case of 30 edits from a year ago, I think it is time to move on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opabinia regalis, I think there maybe some misunderstanding here. My question was meant to ask whether it is helpful to investigate behavioral evidence about old socks which may be potentially connected to an active master. My question isn't meant to be limited to the example case, but any active masters with old sock evidence. (I was actually told that if I think there are accounts with similarities to Daner's creek that I can post them at SPI.) Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Littleolive oil

Removed please see talk page.

Questions from Moneytrees

2. The Antisemitism in Poland proposed decision. Do you have any thoughts about the numerous ARCAs filed after the case, or what could've been done differently?

   As you know, I co-drafted that case, and I'll be the first to admit it is not exactly a contender for top marks in drafting quality. This case overlapped with the very time- and resource-intensive Fram situation, and because of inactivity and resignations at the same time, there weren't many arbs available to work on the case. It would have been a challenge even under better conditions, because the dispute is in a content area none of us were experts in. A lot of the content involved non-English sources so claims about POV-pushing and source misrepresentation were very difficult to evaluate.

   This is also a case where I didn't have to

   eat my own dog food, because only two of those ARCAs were started during my term, and only the first one finished. So I'm reading them now for the first time. My first conclusion is that I hate the way we archive ARCAs and they make the talk page a huge mess, but never mind. Looks like there's three clusters of requests: VM/Icewhiz, the EC restriction, and the sourcing restriction. The editor-specific modifications seem like expected consequences given the events after the case: Icewhiz of course was banned, so there was no need for a two-way interaction ban, and subsequently VM successfully appealed his topic ban. The need for EC seems to have come up due to Icewhiz's socking habits after his ban, which I don't think we could reasonably have anticipated at the time of the original decision. The inconsistency between "article" and "content" raised in the August-September 2021 request was probably avoidable, and I think the resulting standardization in the "omnibus" motion was a good idea.

   The biggest challenge seems to be the sourcing restriction. IIRC this originated as a one-off discretionary sanction that then was adopted as a case remedy - much like the original 30/500 that evolved into EC. To some extent you expect some growing pains when doing this kind of "remedy innovation" (again, much like 30/500 took some time to get right, and probably some people still don't think it's there). I like the suggestion raised in some of the discussions there about a community guideline in the style of MEDRS for controversial historical content, and if that existed then it would obviate the need for this kind of restriction in an individual topic area. In any case it looks like in some ways the restriction outlived its usefulness and was rolled back a bit, and may well become obsolete if poor sourcing stops being a common behavior in the area. I think that if the case had been structured differently from the outset, with more of the common participants in the area listed as parties, it might have had a more traditional outcome with individual restrictions being proposed rather than a general topic-based one, though I'm not familiar enough with events since then to say if it would have worked out better. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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 think this is pretty far afield of what arbcom actually does. Contrary to popular belief, arbcom is not the disciplinary committee, and I suspect their annual budget of $0 is not going to make an effective bounty system. If the WMF wants to do that, I suppose they could, though I don't think it's likely to be a success or find community support.

   As for the part that could be within arbcom's remit, I think that should start with providing some evidence of these alleged markets privately. That doesn't have to mean turning in specific people, but a claim like this is pretty extreme and needs substantiation before we invest effort in evaluating potential solutions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:31, 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.)

   That really depends on the situation. I've noticed it's sometimes the case that both people in a two-way iban believe that they are blameless victims being unfairly sanctioned for their opponent's obvious misdeeds. And at the other end of the spectrum, sometimes an iban of any kind is just a stopgap and what we really should be doing is blocking the harasser. If it's truly asymmetrical, yet also not severe enough to just block the problem person, then I generally agree that the person being harassed shouldn't be sanctioned just for the sake of others' convenience. If the situation warrants, a middle ground might be changing the presentation - voluntarily agreeing to not interact with the sanctioned party - or adding a note in the iban itself explaining the reason, to avoid the problem you mention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear

2. I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   I think that's four questions formatted as one :p

   To be honest, if I signed up for a website and got caught up in some kind of error that I couldn't convince the management to resolve, and I still wanted to use the site, I'd just wait a few days and start a new account and move on with my life. Which I'm sure is what lots of people do in this situation. It's a crummy first experience for new users, and I'm sure we lose some would-be new editors who don't take that step, but it's hardly some travesty of justice or stain on our moral fiber or whatever. It's just a website. (Same applies to everyone out there reading this and getting ready to be shocked! shocked I say! that an arbcom candidate could endorse sockpuppetry like this!) I admit I don't work on unblock requests much, so I may be wrong, but I don't think falsely confessing to sockpuppetry is something genuine new users are very likely to do. I think they're much more likely to either give up or reregister.

   As for what to do about these blocks, as a practical matter we don't want to give it away if we've figured out that some recurring sockmaster has a behavioral "tell". SPI is not Sockpuppet School. But if others reviewing a

   WP:DUCK block are making a genuine effort to see the connection and still only seeing a rabbit, then maybe it's not quite duck-ish enough for a block. A good next step there is to contact the blocking admin by email to have a more frank conversation than would be possible in public where the sockmaster could be reading. Blocks are supposed to be peer-reviewable by other admins, so making hard-to-explain "duck" blocks and not having/using email would IMO be questionable practice. Of course, if a particular case really does need to be tracked closely or for some reason relies on actually private information, the blocking admin should send their evidence to arbcom (or CUs/functionaries, as applicable), where there are institutional-memory resources that admins as a group don't have.

   I don't think appeals of duck blocks need to be more complicated than any other appeal. The user should just explain what they were doing - how they came to edit that article/choose that username/whatever. It's a judgment call whether the explanation sounds plausible. In a lot of cases, if they get unblocked but shouldn't have, they'll get themselves in trouble again in short order. To avoid this kind of issue I think many cases of low-level sock blocks would be better off as blocks for straightforward disruption. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. You wrote above that "... I think it's really concerning that our top-level dispute resolution process is apparently so unpleasant (or time-consuming, or perceived to be unfair) that it's common to just decide not to participate in it. That's something I think we should really prioritize as a community in the next year." I think this issue is really concerning too. Given free rein, how would you fix it?

   Good question! There's only so far "free rein" for one person can go, I think, because a lot of this is about how people who aren't me would feel about things. As you know, deciding to run for arbcom is a slightly crazy decision that makes you unrepresentative of the general editing population ;) See for example the suggestion in

   WP:OMGWTFBBQ!) that might translate to the arbcom context. If nothing else, we could poach the format and run a similar (but hopefully shorter) RfC on arbcom cases. I have my own ideas about how I think the case pages should be restructured, for example, but I'd want to put those out for community review before pushing them too hard, because it really might be just me who thinks it would be a better environment with better records if case requests had their own subpages, and ARCAs were subpages of the case they belong to.

   Speaking of ARCA, I think that's another area that needs attention. Even as case numbers decline, a growing fraction of the project is subject to arbcom decisions from past cases. Most editors' "exposure" to arbcom now comes from DS, not disputes that make it to a case request, and AE/DS is a notorious thicket of confusing and inconsistent rules. I'd love to see the DS review started last year come to a conclusion.

   Probably the most salient changes I'd like to institute if it were all up to me are at ANI, even more than at arbcom. Some of the worst conversations on Wikipedia, in any forum, are the high-volume, rapid-fire back-and-forth comments that are impossible for the subjects of the thread to keep up with. We keep adding more and more rules to try and organize the chaos, but the more we write the less people read. I think we have a road with a lot of dangerous drivers, and we've tried the equivalent of bigger speed-limit signs and more speeding tickets, and it's time to try installing some speed bumps.

   This will get criticized for being a technical solution to a social problem, but I think building in some nudges toward good behavior into the environment in a generalized way so it doesn't feel like personal criticism would help a lot. When you write a post at ANI (or some areas of arbspace too), a little word counter appears in the corner and turns orange at 400 words in the rendered text and red at 500. You can still post longer, but there's a little hint to keep it short. (I know, irony alert!) If you post to ANI more than 10 times in 15 minutes, you're partially blocked for an hour. If you do it more than 15 times in 24 hours, you get blocked for a day. If you post more than 5 comments in one thread or post in more than 5 threads, you have to click through a little pop-up box saying "dispute resolution works best with diverse voices participating, and you've already posted N times". Generally use the "built environment" to give people cues on what they're supposed to do and how they're supposed to behave, and reduce the amount of friction and baseline irritation that even long-term editors experience in dispute-resolution venues.

   Nah, never mind, I only wrote all that so you wouldn't read to the bottom where I admit to my nefarious plot to become Dictator of Wikipedia ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Many years ago when voting on this decision, you wrote "Support, but I think we need one of these for Banedon as well. I see 15 notifications". A few of the other arbitrators agreed with you, yet it seems like nothing happened. Why? If it's because you opted not to push harder to have a separate finding of fact added, why did you make that decision?

   That case was in October 2016. And on this 639th day of March 2020, I don't exactly remember :) Looks like nobody proposed another finding, probably for the reason Callanecc suggested, that whatever you were doing at the time was not overall significant enough to need it. Some arbs have the philosophical view that there's no need for findings unless they have a corresponding remedy - I don't in general, but probably wouldn't bother with extra findings for relatively minor stuff like this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position about ArbCom finally following through with
   DS amendments
   and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which was put on the back burner in 2021?

   Luckily it's a wiki so nothing's irreversible :) When I started paying attention to arbcom a few years back, there were a lot of disputes around AE/DS enforcement, particularly the problem of one admin deciding to implement a block or other sanction after others had already declined to act. Possibly as a result of the high level of drama - which led to at least

   cases - things seemed to settle down in this area during my term. Disputed sanctions or complaints about being overruled tended to get hashed out at ARCA, where I think the slow pace and annoying formatting of the page counterintuitively helped settle things down.

   I haven't been following the AE/DS area since I left the committee so I can't say whether this problem has come back; it does seem like there's a swinging cultural pendulum on this topic, as with a lot of other enforcement-type areas. The consultation lists the perceived "first-mover advantage" as one area for examination in the next phase of DS review. It seems like the planned schedule for the review has slipped (like so many things in arbcom that aren't immediately on fire) and I'd certainly like to see it through. If I were elected I'd want to look at what the current committee has done so far before proposing any major changes. If I were to pick a top priority for DS review/improvement, I'd start with "awareness", a system long known to be a mess. For some of the other issues around first-movers or enforcement actions, I've always wondered why we don't have a "two-admin sign-off" kind of system for some high-stakes actions. Whether this is an appropriate use case, I'm not quite sure, because multiple admins already tend to weigh in in places like AE or in tense ANI threads, but what I had in mind is more of a shared responsibility than just being part of a consensus. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Do you really have time for this?

   If anybody tells you they know exactly how much time they have over the next 730 days, they're blowing smoke. Especially if they tell you that in the middle of a pandemic. But yeah, I have the time to do now what I did previously. I guess it'd take longer to fill in all these redlinks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for throwing your hat in the ring and for your responses to my questions.

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?

   Well, I think people do have a few more options than that - on the content side of things, you can run an RfC, go to specialized noticeboards, use relevant processes like RM, even recruit more input from a wikiproject. None of that is necessarily "dispute resolution" but our normal processes can have that function. I guess I'll answer the second question first, I have been a big fan of very structured, moderated RfCs since participating in one that I thought was going to be a complete dumpster fire and then... it actually worked well and pretty much solved the problem. These are a lot of work to set up, but I think we could help with a little more social infrastructure around it. For example, we have people who sort of individually volunteer themselves as closers of big RfCs and messy ANI threads, but we don't really have any organized process for recruiting closers of RfCs after they've run their course, much less volunteers to moderate while they're ongoing. Come to think of it, as I was writing this I realized it sounded familiar and I have

   Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration into Wikipedia:Requests for Discretionary Sanctions and Topic Bans, but I think there's room for streamlined handling of this kind of request with an obvious real-world component, like the way the COVID-19 and Horn of Africa sanctions were implemented. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Cabayi

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda Arendt

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

   Thank you for the reminder of the calming influence of the late lamented SarahSV.

   While there had been an apology from RexxS to Valeree, Valeree was still of the opinion that "I just want someone to take RexxS by the scruff and give him a good firm shake to focus his attention".

   An outbreak of peace with Valeree did not resolve the other issues in the complaint. It was certainly beyond her abilities to resolve the concerns of others.

   The case needed to be accepted, whether it needed to result in a desysop, or whether an accepteble level of "scruff taking" could have been found in the ensuing discussions is a different matter. Unfortunately, there aren't many (any?) options between public reproach at AN and desysop. Cabayi (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ritchie333

2. Thanks for putting yourself forward to serve on the committee. I notice I opposed your RfA, and (with some irony given the above question) quoted RexxS : "Personally, with established editors, I'm in favour of talking far more and blocking not at all. When I was teaching, I often felt that punishing a naughty child was a mark of my failure to get through to them. Handing out blocks leaves the same impression. Except that we're now dealing with grown people, and frankly, that isn't the way to solve problems among adults." However, I'm not averse to changing my mind about how suitable editors are as admins, or indeed arbs, so it would be interesting to know how you've changed since then, and what you now think of this quotation?

   I recall your oppose. The comments you made about blocks and G5s were thought provoking. It took me by surprise (and some disappointment at my lack of articulacy) that a point which I made, "respect the block", intended to be about avoiding

   WP:CABALism. It just goes to show the truth of the Terry Pratchett quote at the top of my userpage. Reflecting on your vote and a couple of other Noes colours my views on the current RFA reform discussions. A well considered oppose can do the discussion and the candidate a world of good. It prompted the writing of the transcludable User:Cabayi/RFA No, which I haven't used yet as it still needs a bit of polish.

   On G5, I'm still pretty close to the position I held then, though willing to restore the deleted material for a bona-fide editor who wishes to take up the page - but nobody has yet asked.

   Like RexxS, I'd favour discussion but, just as nobody needs the admin tools for article creation, nobody comes to arbcom when talking has been successful.

   An aside on RexxS' comment, maybe it's a side-effect of COVID lockdowns & home-schooling but I've been more and more aware over the last 15 months (and sent a troubling amount of material for oversight) that we are not necessarily "dealing with grown people". Cabayi (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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?

   Thanks, that's an intriguing question. If Arbcom were a legal process, I'd say balance of probability, but it's not. As nobody's life, liberty or property is in jeopardy at Arbcom I'm not sure that the question as framed is in tune with Arbcom's purpose. The core question in each case, regardless of the case's particulars, is "What's the best outcome for Wikipedia?". Most of the time (nearly every time) that'll be what's equitable to both parties in the dispute. Sometimes it won't. Cabayi (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Do you have a specific in mind which might help frame a response? Cabayi (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. As a follow-up to the response to Question #2: I don't have a specific past ArbCom Case, so I'll present you with a hypothetical. ArbCom has accepted a case that involves two users: User A and User B. User A and User B have been in a dispute that involves User A alleging that User B has repeatedly canvassed editors off-wiki on Redirects for Deletion. The community has been unable to come to a solution at
   WP:ANI
   after repeated attempts, so ArbCom decides to accept the case. User A confidentially reports off-wiki evidence that User B engaged in off-wiki canvassing, providing as evidence (a) screenshots from non-public forums you do not have direct access to, (b) emails between User A and an email that User A says is User B's email, (c) emails between User A and a verified email of a Wikipedia editor not a party to the ArbCom case, and (d) screenshots of what User A says are discord messages from User B. What would be your approach in verifying that each of the types of evidence that User A has submitted is authentic? And, if you can't yourself verify evidence to be fully authentic, what would be your approach on how to weigh uncertainty in the authenticity of that evidence when determining whether or not User B engaged in off-wiki canvassing?

   Picking it apart, "screenshots from non-public forums" implies that both users A & B are participants in that forum, and hints that User A may possibly be pursuing the case without clean hands. I would request that both parties send in a copy of their interactions in the key period, whether screenshots from the forum or emails (with headers). Requesting a specific set of data from both sides, and both sides knowing that the same request has been made of both of them, should encourage openness & honesty from both sides. It might be possible to tie the emails' source IP to checkuser data.

   At its core, the case pivots on the appearance of new users at RFD. There are more participants with evidence than just A & B. Cabayi (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Updated with follow-up. —

talk) 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

2. I understand having no reform agenda, but the community either can't reform ArbCom directly, as in the case of procedures (including
   ARBPOL
   where the committee has proposed changes that then have been accepted by the community rather than completely through the community route. So can you provide some more context/explain further the part of your statement where you write, I bring no personal agenda to reform Arbcom - that should be a matter for the community rather than the Arbcom itself.?

   The context was Banedon's statement which reads as a legalistic reform agenda. I do not view my candidacy as a referendum on Arbcom reform, just a candidacy to serve. Cabayi (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheresNoTime

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

   To arbitrate in disputes and secure the outcome most beneficial to Wikipedia. Cabayi (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   The question implies that it's a matter of Arbcom's case-handling. It's an equally valid starting point that those cases which can be resolved without sanctions are generally resolved before arriving at Arbcom. Do you have an analysis of admin conduct cases at AN/ANI? Cabayi (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Selection bias was the descriptor which wouldn't come to mind when I answered. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   I wouldn't presume to know all the evidence which the committee has seen, nor which points they found most telling in their private discussions, not to the point of disputing the outcome. Cabayi (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. (Follow-up to Q1) I'm afraid I don't have that analysis. If you disagree with the framing of the question, could you please answer the substantive question: what are your thoughts on the Committee's approach to desysop cases?

   I favour a standard recall process & voted for it in this year's RfC. The community has decided that, for the moment, Arbcom remains the only forum for requesting desysop.

   A case which has arrived at Arbcom has (presumably) gone through talk page discussions, AN/ANI discussions, and a decision process on whether to accept/decline the Arbcom case. I would never argue that a case at Arbcom is a foregone conclusion as you first implied, but it will have gone through multiple stages at which it could be de-escalated or resolved. The cases which make it to a full Arbcom case will represent the most intractable cases, not a full spectrum of complaints.

   Arbcom's recent move to allow unresponsive admins 3 months to return and re-open the case gives admins who may feel overwhelmed by the process plenty of time to regroup, gather their thoughts, and re-assess their position. I take that as a positive move. Cabayi (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from George Ho

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   The UCoC appears (imo) to merely wrap some boilerplate text and legal language around policies which already exist, and are enforced, on the English Wikipedia. There's been no blitz of material imposing new requirements on enwiki users. Yet undoubtedly it's been a significant effort for WMF and they view it as being important.

   I believe it has two purposes, 1 - to bring small wikis up to the same levels of governance Enwiki has; 2 - for external consumption, primarily when

   WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Cabayi (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   ​Two hours after posting this reply I received an email notifying me of a post on Diff which touches lightly on the same issues. Cabayi (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2021 (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?

   I'm pretty sure I could dig through cases and come up with one which one I could spin into a life-affirming tale which sprinkles fairy-dust all over my candidacy. However, the only case which recurs, and does so in multiple contexts is

   WP:FRAMBAN. It established a clear dividing line between the roles of WMF & Arbcom. It is in many ways the Marbury v. Madison of Wikipedia. Just as Marbury's history shows its ongoing influence and importance I believe Fram's case will endure as a boundary marker between WMF & Arbcom. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. 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 and taking those comments into consideration?

   If the pile-on comments show a common thread and build an "ongoing pattern-of-behaviour" aspect to the case, yes. If they're off-topic, not so much. Cabayi (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 by default almost the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers?

   Not "a clear admission of guilt" but a problem of its own, something akin to a driver refusing to take a sobriety test or breath test, or an athlete

   WP:ADMINACCT requires an admin to account for their use of the tools. Recent cases have seen the admins concerned given a window in which they can return to the case and have it reopened. If they will not account for their adminship for 3 months or more - whose choice is the desysop really?

   For the non-admin cases, the committee's purpose is arbitration. If one party to the case declines to participate, a default judgement is the only plausible way forward. Cabayi (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Thank you for your answers, Cabayi. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from 1233

2. You say you hate the foundation's handling of Fram, so I'm asking this question: How do you look into the foundation's handling of the Wikimedians of Mainland China working group, which spurred local breaking news (yes, Hong Kong news outlets), shocked the whole Chinese Community, and brought what some considered as injustice to Wikipedia? (Links for your reference: September Office Action Statement , Signpost # In the News)

   The Fram standoff resolved when WMF came to the realisation that they ought not to undermine the established governance process and handed the matter back to Arbcom for a final decision. The Chinese wiki rejected the idea of setting up an Arbcom - zh:维基百科:仲裁委员会. It's a sad situation, but I can't see that WMF are the instigators of the situation, nor the reason that the Chinese wiki lacks an Arbcom. They're doing their best in a poor situation. Cabayi (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from wbm1058

2. Should ArbCom-appointed checkusers be allowed to unilaterally tag a user as a likely sockpuppet of another user, point to the (perhaps years-old) sockpuppet investigation of the alleged sockpuppeteer, and then block the accused new user based on only behavioral evidence (i.e. with non-confirming technical evidence), without first conducting a community examination of the alleged behavioral connection and gaining a community consensus to block? Indeed, per this example, "Undid revision 1055911694 by xxxxx leave this for User:yyyy" the impression given by that edit summary is that the decision is only to be made by the accusing checkuser admin – who has yet to open a formal discussion on the matter. Are you OK with that?

   The question as asked does not reflect the events in the case you cite.

   To your question: You don't know what evidence exists in the CU logs which, despite being years old may still be entirely relevant and on point. Am I happy for a CU to tag socks, 100% yes, it's what the role is about.

   To the case you cite: Yamla's comments indicated that Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) was likely (which is a specific degree of certainty when used by CUs) the sockmaster. Hemiauchenia tagged it as a sock of Hillbillyholiday (talk · contribs) based on off-wiki evidence. Bbb23 removed that tag and requested it was left to Yamla to tag the sock according to the evidence used. Ideally Hemiauchenia should send their off-wiki evidence to Yamla or the CUs' mailbox for further scrutiny. Sadly sockmasters don't always tell the truth on-wiki or off-wiki, and there's nothing they'd like more than to misdirect investigations of their activities. I'd like to see an SPI report filed and proper tagging, but the tagging needs to be correct. Misleading tags are worse than no tags as they may misdirect reporting of later socks.

   I don't see anything in the case as you questioned, or the case as it happened, which could form the basis of any Arbcom intervention. Cabayi (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   WP:5P4 is one of the five pillars, not an optional extra. If one of the editors needs time away from Wikipedia to gain some perspective we can only wish them well, Whether the sanction is a net gain would depend on the balance between their content creation and the drain on volunteer time caused by their bickering. At the same time, Wikipedia might occasionally have to suffer the loss of a good content creator in order to maintain a harmonious editing environment. Cabayi (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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?

   Yes, but editor retention in general, not limited to just the retention of the subject of the complaint, or the filer of the complaint, or any of the witnesses. Cabayi (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 00:56, 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?

   There was nothing actionable in the report. Blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive and blocking an account which hasn't been used in 8 months isn't going to prevent anything. Your evidence may be useful in tying the master to a later sock. Not all evidence is useful straightaway. So I'd say Thank you for filing the report, but there's nothing that can be gainfully done at this point. Cabayi (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Moneytrees

2. Thank you for running. At my voter guide (User:Moneytrees/ACE2021, in the "thoughts on the committee in 2021 section"), I outline a series of five unblock related actions Arbcom has recently taken that have gone poorly, in part because it seems that only technical aspects of CU blocks are being looked at, instead of the behavioral issues that sometimes lead to socking and CU blocks. As a SPI clerk, what are your thoughts on these unblocks, and do you have any thoughts on what you might do differently if you were on the committee? Thank you.

   I'd love to take the high ground and have a superior attitude in those cases, but I can't. In July 2020 I

   WP:COI & WP:Autobiography editing. Oftentimes we have to let bad users prove they're untrustworthy rather than assuming it. Cabayi (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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?

   You propose creating a second market, in the names of buyers on off-wiki freelance sites. My initial reaction is no, and becomes more NO the more I think about it. The off-wiki markets I've seen, and the cases brought to SPI, show that the losing bidders for an article creation job will then nominate the article for deletion in the hope of winning the commission second time round. Switching one market for another just alters the context of the corruption and worse yet, has WMF paying for it.

   I'm saddened that despite your 15 years and 19000 edits you don't feel invested enough in the project to report the meatpuppets & protect Wikipedia. I don't see the point in an exclusive Wiki syntax training. Why should anyone be excluded from training? Shouldn't the training be offered to all, for the good of the wiki? Cabayi (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of the possibility that some former employees might try to take advantage of their ex-bosses for ulterior motives besides money. Verification for bounty eligibility would need to be part of the system. Many freelancing sites save past conversations, so it shouldn't be too hard for employees to verify who their employer(s) are and the extent of their past employment.

I fleshed out some of the details on the "exclusive training" midway through User_talk:Wugapodes#Paid_voting_/_commenting_plan. A legitimate "marketplace" (or challenge/reward page) already exists on enwiki, and has for years, although probably less than 1% of editors know about it. Wiki-syntax tutoring between first-language English speakers and people for whom English is a second language is a niche sort of thing that is best separated from wiki infrastructure intended for just anyone. I agree with you in that a system to match tutors with candidates could be opened in a broader way, especially if the supply of tutors is willing to meet the demand.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ability to communicate in English should no longer apply on the English Wikipedia? Either way, it's beyond the remit of Arbcom. Cabayi (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see anything changing with the use of English on enwiki. It is possible for people who have limited English skills to communicate in English via synchronous communication. So when there is a misunderstanding, the tutor can reword it in another way, or give examples until everything is understood. This is why an "exclusive" or separate tutoring type program would be especially beneficial.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:43, 24 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.)

   There are no perfect solutions. I don't agree that the potential for gaming one-way IBANs is "purely technical". The context may be explained by pointing to the Arbcom case without further comment. I'm open to reconsidering any IBAN if it's purpose has been served and it's no longer required. Cabayi (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Here is the two-way IBAN in question, here is the FoF on which it was based, and here is the original failed one-way proposal. Your thoughts?

   So long as the other party to the two-way prefers for it to remain in place, it probably should. It protects you both. However, three more years have passed and maybe the other party's opinion has changed and they're now ready to agree to its lifting at another appeal? Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. In that case (assuming the other party still wishes it to remain in place for whatever reason), would you support amending the ban to add the wording ...due to one-way hounding by User Y to prevent further instances of me being threatened/intimidated/stigmatized based solely on the existence of the ban?

   That's a pointed question...

   am I willing to give you assurances regarding an appeal in order to get your vote? No.

   am I willing to give you a fair hearing, as one voice out of fifteen, if I'm elected and you appeal? Yes.

   - Cabayi (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position about ArbCom finally following through with
   DS amendments
   and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which was put on the back burner in 2021?

   Coincidentally I've been thinking on DS since yesterday. It's an arcane process for resolving restraining disputes between experienced editors. To novice editors they're completely baffling. The use of DS notices, without any specific restrictions/sanctions is something we'd all call a chilling effect if we saw it on another website. It needs an overhaul. It needs clarification. You're preaching to the choir concerning the review of DS. Cabayi (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Generally I hold to the view that systems should be set up so that it's easier for a newcomer to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing. It's not clear to me that DS do that. Cabayi (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Your response to the pile-ons above gave me pause. I have serious reservations about the benefits of a mobocracy, and the lack of decorum at ANI and AN, and sometimes even ARCA. Do you really believe there is merit in pile-ons, especially considering WP's own systemic biases?

   My answer to Kudpung's Q1? If the original complaint sparks from a single incident, and the pile-ons create or add to a picture of the issue being ongoing problematic behaviour in that regard, then yes, they deserve the evidence they add deserves consideration. If the pile-ons are off-topic, a different issue, or simply a settling of scores - they should be ignored. Cabayi (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, thank you for volunteering for this thankless job and for your convincing replies. I am somewhat relieved by your response to Q1, and understand your reply to Q2 but I just want to add this little tidbit, and a quote, "Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.” There's also a good chance that pile-ons can cause an unexpected result as discovered in the Asch-conformity-experiments, or some off-wiki suggestions. I'm of the mind that decorum is of the utmost importance when an editor is "on trial", and that involved editors should have their say, but the feedback from uninvolved editors should carry the most weight. Just sayin'... Atsme 💬 📧 17:44, 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?

   I think your question points to its answer. The community decides content issues. The admins (with community input at AN/ANI) decide conduct issues.

   Once an issue is pushed beyond

   WP:DRN would put you at the top of my voting list for Arbitrators. I hope to see your name on the candidates list next time round. Cabayi (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Guerillero

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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?

   More likely than not. ArbCom is not a court and removal from a website or restricting what people can do here is not comparable in any way to denial of civil liberties, death, fines, forced labor, etc. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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?

   Having worked with this kind of evidence, it is extremely hard to verify. Outside of things on the open internet, it is down to trust. I would love for the committee to get out of the off-wiki issues business, but it seems that neither the community wants us to hand it off to the WMF nor the WMF wants to take it up. We don't have the tool, time, and background to verify the dizzying array of non-public information. So, here we are. I have voted to ban people in the past based on off-wiki evidence and I will do it again if the evidence comes to me. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

   The Arbitration Committee exists to reduce the amount of disruption on the project by making binding decisions on conduct issues. Additionally, it is the dumping ground for all sorts of things that can't be done in public or that there currently isn't a community process for. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt

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

   When RexxS stopped editing 2 days later and it looked like he de facto retired, I would have moved to suspend the case. Charging on with the case did nobody any good. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I think that this question reverses things a bit. Because there are two things going on here: a numerator and a denominator. (My 4.5 years working in global heath finally comes in clutch)

   Denominator: The pipeline for ADMINCOND cases is leaky. This is a good thing. It means that most ADMINCOND issues get solved before it comes to ArbCom. Further, ArbCom has been choosy when accepting cases. Cases without strong legs tend to get rejected. I think if you would expand the denominator to all ADMINCOND from the Drama Boards to ArbCom you would see a very different picture.

   Numerator: By restricting the number of cases like this, the percentage of cases with a desysop gets fairly close to 1. I have voted to not desysop people in the past and I will probably do it again. I will say that I am much more in favor of desysops than some people are. I am a firm believer in the idea that if we can't trust someone to use the toolset in one place, they shouldn't have the toolset at all.

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.

   I don't think that it was in anyone's best interest to plow on to a decision in RexxS when he had de facto retired and a better thing to do would be suspend the case until his return or a year passed.

   The unblock of SethRuebens was a waste of the community's time. At the very least it should have come with a topic ban from the areas that he was causing disruption in before the socking started.

   Workshops are a waste of everyone's time and are mostly a mudpit. I disagree with this year's committee who doubled down on them.

   The network of socks that was air dropped into the public record in August was done in an extremely unproductive way

   The overhaul of DS is months behind schedule --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung

2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?

   My answer to your similar question that you posed to me 12 months ago still seems sound: "Arbitration is a community process to find solutions to ongoing problems that have failed to be solved in other forums. Because it is not a court, Arbs have a wide remit to do as much individual research as they would like; however, Arbs are not detectives and are not required to do more than utilize the evidence presented when casting their votes for a solution". --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. It is claimed by some that little or no participation by an accused generally results in a more severe sentence. In the RexxS case, the members' opinions on an accused's right to silence varied from one extreme to the other. Consensus was however, that participation is neither an obligation, nor should it be taken into consideration for the severity of the sentence. Whether or not ArbCom functions according to Case law, or makes up its own rules on a case-by-case basis, in the interests of consistency would it make sense to get some kind of ruling established in policy?

   Officially, past cases have no barring on future ones. In practice, this is not 100% true and past cases are fairly persuasive. As I like to point out ArbCom is not a court and is not part of a justice system. It exists to find solutions to ongoing and otherwise unsolvable behavioral problems.

   As for policy, that is the community's decision and not ArbCom's. I do not think I could tell you where the majority of editors sit on this issue. It comes up on AN/ANI/AE often enough that it might be worth having a RfC.

   RE the RexxS case: what the 2021 ArbCom did is not what I would have done. When it was a month since RexxS's last edit, it would have made much more sense to suspend the case until RexxS returned or a year went by, whichever one comes first. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers, Guerillero. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from George Ho

2. I asked you last year about the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy, which the WMF approved. Have your opinions on the UCoC developed since?

   The UCoC mostly forces smaller Wikimedia Foundation projects to follow something similar to EN Wikipedia policy. I don't see it having any effect on this project at all. What I am skeptical of is the GlobalArbCom who is supposed to enforce the UCoC. It is still an open question if the GlobalArbCom is going to hear appeals from our ArbCom and in what way. Also if it hears things from projects with established self-governance like the French, English, and German Wikipedias. If it does, I am skeptical of having yet another body that needs good EN Wikipedia editors to sit on it. But, Barkeeep is on the drafting committee for the charter of that group. So there is hope. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. If you're not elected an arbitrator, how do you think would ArbCom perform without you for the next year or two?

   Just fine. The committee will make some decisions that I agree with and some decisions that I disagree with. The committee will still have one former clerk on it and one pre-2017 arb. The world will turn. I will make my displeasure known with my functionary, clerk, and old arb hats on when I disagree enough. I am not self-important enough to think that my one perspective is the thing that will save the committee --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from The Most Comfortable Chair

2. How would you envision that we "rethink and retool the process" of DS enforcement? What are the specific changes you would be in favor of?

   Something needs to be done about "awareness." Bespoke sanctions are starting to be a drag on the system. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. You mention in your statement that — "We also need to think about the intersection of socking and AE." Could you elaborate on what you meant and talk about potential ways in which the situation can be improved?

   An Icewhiz sock started a series of AE threads that resulted in topic bans. The DS process has no function to weigh letting a WMF-banned sock master "win" against the need for the editing restriction. Maybe an automatic review when it comes out that sanctions happened due to a banned editor's entry to the project? Sanctions wouldn't automatically lift, but they should be given another look at to make sure they are reasonable today in light of the new evidence --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Cwmhiraeth

2. As a former member of ArbCom, did you ever take part in a case in which you probably should have recused yourself?

   Looking back over the cases I participated in, I don't think so --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from wbm1058

2. Should ArbCom-appointed checkusers be allowed to unilaterally tag a user as a likely sockpuppet of another user, point to the (perhaps years-old) sockpuppet investigation of the alleged sockpuppeteer, and then block the accused new user based on only behavioral evidence (i.e. with non-confirming technical evidence), without first conducting a community examination of the alleged behavioral connection and gaining a community consensus to block? Indeed, per this example, "Undid revision 1055911694 by xxxxx leave this for User:yyyy" the impression given by that edit summary is that the decision is only to be made by the accusing checkuser admin – who has yet to open a formal discussion on the matter. Are you OK with that?

   I know you are on a quest of sorts about recent drama in regards to this election, so I am not going to opine on the specifics of this case. In the general, there does not need to be a consensus or a discussion of behavioral evidence. Indeed, there is rarely a discussion at SPI. When there is, it isn't to come to some sort of agreement --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Yes. Your hypothetical is ignoring all of the wasted editor time trying to solve their clashes through ANI, AN, RfCs, talk page discussions, etc. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   No. Disruption is disruption --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the talk page. A7V2 (talk) 04:04, 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?

   It is an important thing to do, but I do not think you are the correct person to be looking for Daner's Creek-related sock puppets --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   This is the first I have head of such a thing. I would suggest that people who know of things like this bring the evidence forward to arbcom or the WMF. As for a bounty program, it seems too easy to game. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:02, 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.)

   Seeing the ongoing AE thread, I think it is best to avoid expounding upon a future appeal before it has been made --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear

2. I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   I think that withholding some of the behavioral evidence is well supported by past and ongoing practice. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive. I think it is moral due to the ongoing abuse that happens from many of our frequent flyers. It is really easy to forget the toll that LTAs have taken on editors and their families. For instance, I am not going to give the tells of anyone on this list away because of what they did to get there and the danger of them reappearing in the community. For others, the risk is lower. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Therapyisgood

2. I noticed above there is talk of a global arbcom who could hear appeals from the local enWP Arbcom. Where should I go to hear an update on the global arbcom?

   We don't know what The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (what I called the global ArbCom) will look like or what it is going to do to enforce the UCOC. It is very possible that it will be banned from hearing appeals from some arbcoms or all arbcoms. Meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement draft guidelines review has most of it. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. What was your stance on the
   Wikipedia:FRAMBAN
   situation?

   The WMF should not have stepped into the internal affairs of the English Wikipedia and should have asked ArbCom to open a case based on the evidence that they collected. Self-governance is important and the WMF has not shown that the English Wikipedia is like

   posted my thoughts on that page --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

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?

   My experience is that the role of ArbCom is to step in, solve the conduct issue, and then let the community deal with the content issues. The best time to step in is when it is apparent that the community can't, for whatever reason, solve a conduct issue. In this process, ArbCom should try its hardest to avoid entering into content issues. I think the graph to the right shows that the community is working just fine to resolve all kinds of dispites. ArbCom has decided less than 10 cases per year since 2016 instead of the 116 in 2006. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Izno

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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?

   For public evidence (

   which should be the majority if not entirety

   ...), 'clear and convincing' looks just as reasonable as 'preponderance', since the differentiator between the two appears to be how much the individual's story can be believed... and I find it difficult to delineate the two where the evidence is public. Private evidence seems another matter, and for that I think I tend more toward 'clear and convincing', at least after examination... (so, question 2...)

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?

   When I look at this question, I see the thorns of

   WT:ACN

   when actions have been taken based on private evidence.

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

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

   I will decline to speak too directly on Sarah's caring message. I am saddened we haven't seen RexxS since the case. I considered him one of my wiki-friends and hope he comes back some time. Would I have !voted to accept or decline? Unfortunately, I think I would have !voted to accept the case given the statements on the requests page. Though Valeree's issues were a clear cause of the request, there are enough diffs at the request to indicate concern with RexxS's administrative work and temperament.

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?

   The data is interesting, but doesn't seem meaningful on a case-by-case basis. ArbCom is expected to be the last resort; my observation is that most of the cases it has accepted on the

   WP:ADMINCOND

   dimension have been appropriately accepted.

   On an aside, that table might meaningfully be extended for cases where ADMINCOND was alleged and ArbCom declined to take the case, as well as the associated counts of votes for both acceptance and declining, as well as the vote for the sanctions (whether declined sanction or final) after an accepted case. That seems like better data to use to come to a meaningful conclusion on this point.

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.

   You've got me wondering where Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC went now and whether that's been worked in the past year. (I realize that's just outside 2021; if it must be from 2021, let me know.)

6. (Follow-up to Q1) Your answer was mainly addressed to the preamble of the question, but not the question itself. Could you give further detail to your thoughts on the Committee's approach to desysop cases?

   "Has the Committee done a good job?" is the only way I can interpret the question meaningfully. By and large, I think it has. I look at the list of names on Maxim's page and

   WP:ADMINCOND

   (and for a specific few, tools unfitness or at least social unfitness on top of tools unfitness).

8. (Follow-up to Q2) In the interest of fairness for the other candidates, I think it would be best to limit decisions to only 2021.

   I see no inactions out of the declined case requests that I would name as an issue. I didn't like how RexxS resolved, but I also see the case as a reasonable case (at least in its request; I didn't follow beyond that beyond knowing that he is presently absent), so that doesn't feel like a good answer. None of the other taken cases jump out at me. For someone without access to internal ArbCom communications, that leaves instances like the handful of unblocks/bans this year that have caused some pain and misery, but it would be academic for me to say I disagreed with those since I took most pages off my watchlist earlier this year, and anyway, the community sorted them out at the end of the day. I can say I got an IRL earful from Prax about the Prax-Ritchie motion, but I don't per se disagree with it (I just think that it wasn't a meaningful amendment; does that count as disagreement?). So, no, I cannot point to something that meets the spirit of your question from this year.

Questions from George Ho

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   I applaud it as an effort to ensure a basic standard of decorum on Wikimedia projects. I am hopeful that it can/will be used as a tool for issues like those that have afflicted Croatian Wikipedia and as a tool to show new or smaller language wikis the behavior we generally expect from our members.

   Conversely, I am leery of its potential applications to wikis with decent-if-not-perfect dispute resolution systems. Particularly, I read it when it was published and was worried that there were rules in it that English Wikipedia doesn't do a good job enforcing or which are today wedge issues, if even we have rules on certain points. (I haven't done a cross-check of the specifics to at least say which of the latter might exist, but I know that French Wikipedia has, as an example.)

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?

   I've been most sensitive to the outcomes of the most-recent bot-operator related cases (Magioladitis and Rich), as these are closely connected to the areas I've worked in. For example, while I respect our policy on

   WP:COSMETIC

   changes, I think a lot of good could be done to regularize wikitext, making it easier for newcomers, even though those changes would not make a difference in the final rendered output. (There have been some other bot-related cases that did not reach ARBCOM [yet] that I have looked on with similar wariness.) Those cases on the books are one of a few dampers on such a dream world for me.

Questions from Kudpung

2. 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 and taking those comments into consideration?

   "Should ArbCom care about what's said by uninvolved editors on the talk pages of a case or on the case request?"? I don't see harm in it, but if it's actually useful to the case, it probably deserves to be on the evidence or drafting pages (modulo evidence submitted at the request).

   "Should ArbCom care about what's said by uninvolved editors on the case pages?"? Yes. I think it probably aids the committee's weighing of possible sanction for the parties to the case with respect to the interests of the larger community. And of course, ArbCom members themselves who are sufficiently involved recuse such that (ideally) ArbCom itself is a body uninvolved with the parties, so I'm not sure there's a way of getting around having uninvolved community members' thoughts leaning a direction on the case.

   Let me know if I didn't answer the question completely (or at all).

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 by default almost the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers?

   No. Due process is generally important.

Thank you for your answers Izno. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from The Most Comfortable Chair

2. How will you go about "devolving to the community some of the policy controls that ArbCom has put in place and which it has reserved to itself"? And which exact policy controls would that be?

   Ah, someone asked me that exact question in private almost immediately after I published it.

   The first rule of interest would be the ratification rule itself; I like to think our systems for generating consensus has evolved past the point where we have a need for the rather arbitrary quorum we have today. The second area of interest might be the whole set of procedures and whether those should be subject solely to the arbitration committee's consensus. As I said though, this was a casual interest, and I think I've already added a link elsewhere on this page of ripe (defn #5) work that hasn't publicly moved in over a year regarding integrating the anti-harassment close.

Questions from Joe Roe

2. You are a regular on the
   expectations of administrators
   that we have on-wiki?

   "volunteer"? No.

   "

   norms). You may review the "official" rules at WP:Discord#Guidelines

   .

4. Along the same lines, if you were elected, to what extent do you think it would be appropriate to discuss arbitration matters on Discord? Conversely, would you recuse from a case if another Discord regular was a party?

   Access to privileged data requires at least the same level of privilege as the data is protected under. Discord as a service doesn't provide that for ArbCom data, so, no, not appropriate, even if I were to be discussing with another sufficiently-privileged user.

   As for the latter question, I would in a case which pertains directly to that platform. I think I also would where the person is a significant contributor on that platform.

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?

   If there is sufficient disruption to the encyclopedia, then the minimum viable alternative to a mutual IBAN is probably topic bans for both from the areas they overlap in. Same effect as a "too restrictive IBAN" from this perspective and consequently we lose an editor (we also lose contributions in the two areas on individual pages where the two editors do not overlap, so there is a negative to this option). I would not go so far as to say it is a net positive, but an IBAN with the loss of an editor is probably the best the community can get out of such a case.

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?

   No to the first. Of course we'd like to keep everyone around contributing as net-positives, but stuff that ends up at ArbCom ends up at ArbCom because there is sustained unresolved disruption that needs to be dealt with that is impacting how the community is producing the encyclopedia or the encyclopedia itself.

   As to the second, here's what I had to say a couple days ago about blocks and which I think is probably reasonable for ArbCom sanctions: "I usually weigh the breadth of the issue (1 to N pages), whether it was disruption in mainspace or elsewhere, which of the policies earned the user the block, how severe the policy violation was, and whether I think the user even will [sic] take the opportunity to reform." If that falls under "type of editor and contribution" (especially the last I suppose?), then sure, it matters. If it doesn't, then probably not.

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 04:04, 23 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?

   No. That said, stale doesn't mean "we will never review the contributions of this account", stale means "it's not worth our limited time to pursue this account at this time because the account is not actively disrupting Wikipedia". If/when the account should directly start editing again or another account start editing that looks like the first, and the editing is disruptive, having the link can be a positive start to a more in-depth investigation.

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?

   If such a program were instituted, I think

   ArbCom should have no role in it

   . And as such, were it instituted, the WMF can do as they please within whatever restrictions they wish to place upon themselves or which might be placed upon them by other social, lawful, or political entities. (I think ultimately that would probably be a waste of donor cash.)

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.)

   "What is your stance on two-way IBANs that are imposed because of one-way harassment?" A two-way IBAN in such a situation is contra-indicated for one-way harassment, so far as I know.

   "would you be open to repealing it?" Awfully specific parenthetical statements. Sure, I'd be open to repealing it.

Question from Nosebagbear

2. I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   1. WP:SOCK seems to have nothing about this apparent practice, actually), so, my answer is "it's not forbidden by policy".
   2. "Is it morally justifiable [not to share this information with the blocked user]?" Under which moral system? I'm no philosopher, but I have a couple of undergraduate philosophy courses under my belt (including one on philosophy of law) and could point to (more) systems that say it is morally justifiable and probably a few that say it's not. Does my personal system of ethics think it is justifiable? I think we have sufficient policy protections and mechanisms for someone who needs to have their appeal heard for it to be heard. Having an appeal system, and at least two separate other avenues after that specific system is exhausted, which itself allows multiple attempts at an appeal.... That's probably the closest I'll get to endorsing the practice.
   3. That said, I think our appeals system is crud whether you're accused of socking and the evidence is undisclosed or not, much like many of our other workflows. So general improvement is needed regardless.
   4. False confessions

   are of course a possibility, but this is again a general issue with our block and appeals system. We can maybe do some things about it, like falling back on the community more in questionable cases, and training or asking our administrators (reviewing? blocking?) to treat blocks differently (there are some ways documented in "False confession#Better police training" that might meaningfully be applied here).