Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Bradv

Bradv

Hi everyone, I'm Bradv, and I'm volunteering for a second term on the Arbitration Committee.

I made a statement last year about my intentions at ArbCom, a statement which I have referred to frequently, and which has guided my decisions during my first term. I have fought to increase communication and transparency in order to maintain a high level of trust in the committee. I have tried my best to do the right thing, even when it was difficult or unpopular. I have worked with the WMF to encourage and maintain a clear separation of roles. And, perhaps most importantly, I have worked diligently to remain engaged with the community, both as an arbitrator and as an editor.

There are several new challenges before us in the coming year. A new Universal Code of Conduct is being discussed on meta, which has the potential to change the relationship between the editing community and the WMF, particularly in terms of crosswiki enforcement. Undisclosed paid editing continues to be a rising problem, and is taking up an ever-increasing amount of community time. And our complex system of Discretionary Sanctions is nearing the point of needing an overhaul, or at least some tweaking to keep it in line with the ever-changing needs of the community and the editing process.

The past year on the Arbitration Committee has been a real learning experience, and at times even quite stressful, but it has been made easier by a spirit of camaraderie and collaboration of which the whole committee is proud. It has certainly not been easy, it has not always been fun, but it has never been a chore. Even at points where we disagreed, which were plentiful, we never doubted the sincerity of our colleagues nor their commitment to the project. It is my hope that the committee can maintain this attitude going forward, to model it to the community, to encourage and advise those who lose sight of our mission, and to soberly admonish those who seek to undermine it.

I love this project. I'm proud of it, and proud of all the people who work so diligently to maintain its reputation for accuracy and neutrality in a world of disinformation and deceit. I am grateful for the opportunity to have served in this role for the past year, and if I am chosen to continue for a second term I will consider it an honour and a joy. Our work is not done, our encyclopedia is not complete, and the information revolution continues.

Declaration: I am signatory to the necessary agreements for access to non-public data, and have two alternate accounts: BradV, which I use solely to receive miscapitalized pings, and ArbClerkBot, which unfortunately still only has one job.

• Bradv (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

 Note: Per WP:ACERFC2020, starting this year there is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Question from MJL

2. What would you do differently regarding the Lightbreather July 2020 motion? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

   I'm cautious about reopening old wounds here, so I'll limit my answer at this point to just your specific question rather than any general thoughts I might have about the case. Feel free to ask a follow-up if I'm missing something.

   There are two things I would have liked to have done differently: 1) we should have ensured that the parties that were directly affected by the proposed motion were promptly notified, and 2) we should have waited at least 24 hours for community comments before voting. Failing to do these two things gave the impression that the motion itself was fait accompli, when the actual point of publishing the deliberations onwiki was to allow for feedback from the community, including in the form of evidence. In the end I'm satisfied we got to the right result, but the discussion leading to that result was more distressing than it needed to be. – bradv🍁 17:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No follow-ups needed! I was more concerned with the process rather than the merits of the appeal, and you answered my question well beyond my expectations. Much appreciated, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Nosebagbear

2. What DS aspects do you think make for necessary change, and what changes would you personally like to see made to resolve them?

   When DS was first introduced, the project was far less mature than it is now. Wheel-warring was more prevalent, sourcing requirements were less stringent, and we hadn't learned as much about which sorts of rules would work best to reduce disruption on controversial pages. Since that time, we have also introduced some new commonly-used tools, such as extended-confirmed protection, edit filters, and partial blocks. Despite all of these incremental changes, we have never taken the time to reevaluate the basic building blocks of the discretionary sanctions system to determine whether it is still fit for purpose.

   I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, but I do have a few ideas which I would like to start a conversation around. I would like to see our awareness requirements relaxed and simplified – do we really need to apply one notice per editor per topic area per year? I wonder if the first-mover advantage is still necessary – do we still run the risk of restrictions being overturned by another administrator without discussion? Do we still need to treat protection as an arbitration enforcement action at all, or is the standard protection policy good enough for controversial articles? And is there any way to standardize the custom sanctions in use so that we don't end up with different rules of engagement on each page within a single topic area?

   These are some of the questions I have. I'm aware I'm opening a huge can of worms here by even mentioning them, but I think it's time for this conversation to happen. – bradv🍁 22:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

4. At the distinct risk of raising more cans of worms, I have a suspicion that userbox issues are going to cause appreciable fuss for at least the Community next year, and quite possibly ArbCom. Do you have a position on how you'd prefer to see the issue resolved (e.g. Ban (almost all) reasonably controversial position/membership userboxes, continue with allowing partial removals of groups as decided by the Community, etc). I realise much of this would be decided by Community not ArbCom, correctly, but I feel it's beneficial to hear your viewpoint(s) (I know I haven't clearly settled on one) in case it becomes a infobox-esque situation.

   The userbox dispute is a very old one, and I don't think it's something that's going to be easily solved by an ArbCom case, nor is it something that should even require an ArbCom case to sort out. Fundamentally the divide is between prioritizing the rights of the editor to say what they think, against the rights of the reader not to be shown discriminatory or offensive content. I think our current userbox content guidelines strike the right balance – userboxes shouldn't be divisive or inflammatory, and need to follow the civility policy. These guidelines prioritize the reader over the editor, which is the right priority for an encyclopedia (everything we write we write to benefit the reader, not ourselves).

   There's been some discussion at some of the more contentious MfDs about getting rid of all political userboxes. I don't think that's necessary, although I certainly wouldn't object. We should be able to maintain the line at disallowing content which discriminates or makes people feel unwelcome. – bradv🍁 17:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

6. In a number of edge de-sysop cases, intermediate sanctions (e.g. TBANs, rate limits) have been proposed, but are usually declined on the basis that any admin who receives a significant sanction (that is, more than an admonishment) has lost too much trust and should lose the bit. Desysop cases are therefore usually rather all or nothing. The Medicine case was a significant exception to this. Where do you stand on this somewhat ideological split - can admins receive significant sanctions but retain the bit? Would that be normally considered in edge cases or only in the most nuanced of scenarios?

   I am not aware of any instances of editors with active sanctions passing RfA, which leads me to believe that the community feels that editors subject to restrictions should not be administrators. However, there are certainly times where it is appropriate for ArbCom to apply restrictions as an interim measure or as a compromise solution, and there are several instances of such remedies being successful at resolving the problem and forming new habits. In one case this past year, there was a motion to topic ban an administrator from performing deletions. I opposed that motion, partly because I viewed it is as insufficient given the evidence, but also on ideological grounds as the community has never been on board with separating the core admin tools of block, protect, and delete. But in the Medicine case you mentioned I was fine restricting an administrator without desysopping them, as there was no real evidence to suggest that the community no longer trusted them with the tools.

   It is also important to remember that ArbCom restrictions cannot be appealed to the broader community, but desysoppings can, and therefore in certain situations may be a more appropriate remedy. I wrote more about this aspect here. – bradv🍁 19:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Note: This question is exempt from the two-question limit per Special:PermanentLink/990845973#Request 3rd q. Mz7 (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from George Ho

2. You mentioned the WMF-proposed Universal Code of Conduct in your statement. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   I support the idea of a Universal Code of Conduct as a way to enforce a minimum standard for behavioural policies across the Wikimedia movement, particularly for wikis that don't have robust policies such as found on the English Wikipedia. I am glad to see so much participation in the drafting process, and I am confident that the final draft will be appropriately worded and acceptable to the community.

   My main concerns at this point are two-fold: 1) that any enforcement pathways that are established are owned by the contributing community and not by the Wikimedia Foundation; and 2) that the entire process is ratified by the community through a formal RfC or vote. I would like to see the ratification process done in stages, which means we should be voting on the wording of the code before we proceed to discussion of the enforcement pathways, but I can also appreciate the point of view that says we should adopt the whole thing as one package.

   What I strongly disagree with is any presumption that the Board of Trustees can vote on this and all Wikimedians would by that fact alone be bound to follow it – that would be an unprecedented inversion of responsibilities, and ultimately detrimental to the project. If this Universal Code of Conduct is to have any positive effect at all it must be formally ratified by the editing community. – bradv🍁 02:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

4. The ArbCom cases have been emotion-driven and all, especially to the community. You guys have duties and responsibilities as part of the ArbCom during your tenure. Furthermore, ArbCom has received mixed, if not positive and negative, receptions for the way it handled cases, especially this year unless I stand corrected. I'm unsure about which question to ask you about your line of work, but here goes. How do you think has the ArbCom been compared to the past years: better, more of the same, worse, or what else?

   I touched on this in my nomination statement, but this committee has gotten along quite well, and that mutual appreciation and support have certainly helped to withstand the inevitable criticism of some of the tougher decisions. Because of the revolving nature of the committee, the group continues to mature year after year, and this shows in the committee's ability to respond to stressful situations. That said, there have still been decisions that were poorly communicated or poorly received for a variety of reasons, and that is something we must continue to work on. – bradv🍁 01:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Calidum

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

   The closing statement mentioned several common suggestions relating to so-called "unblockable" users, but there was no actual consensus decision. It's also important to note that a good chunk of that discussion consisted of various interpretations of what "unblockable" means, so it's very clear that each case is different, and there isn't a blanket solution that we can apply in each situation.

   Nevertheless, I think there are some conclusions we can draw from our experience and from that discussion. From time to time we have tried some very elaborate sanctions on editors that are habitually uncivil, in an attempt to preserve their best qualities while saving them from their worst. Occasionally these have served as a wake-up call, but more often than not they have proven unsuccessful at conclusively ending the disruption. In general I would agree with the suggestions mentioned in the closing statement: admonishments, escalating blocks, and in-depth reviews when the first two don't work. – bradv🍁 03:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Gerda

2. In 2013, we had WP:ARBINFOBOX. In 2018, Voceditenore commented this. Would you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

   It's entirely possible that the infobox dispute had settled down between 2013 and 2018, but I was not involved in that dispute at the time so I really can't say whether I agree with that statement. My first encounter with the infobox discussion was only briefly earlier this year, and I haven't yet had cause to wade into that dispute too deeply or become familiar with all the various points of view. – bradv🍁 03:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

For a quick glance, see here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Asartea

2. At the risk of forcing you to explain you entire statement if we continue like this, rgarding this line from your statement: Undisclosed paid editing continues to be a rising problem, and is taking up an ever-increasing amount of community time. Do you have any specific ideas regarding a solution or stopgap measure for this problem? Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

   There are no simple answers to the problem of undisclosed paid editing. As Wikipedia continues to make gains in popularity and in credibility, the potential benefits to being the subject of a Wikipedia article increase, and the lengths that people will go to be mentioned on Wikipedia also increase. At the same time, allowing our standards of inclusion to slide, or allowing more false, biased, or poorly-sourced content about people or companies into the project, diminishes the credibility of the project and undermines our progress toward verifiability and neutrality. Fighting against this effort takes up enormous amounts of contributor time, and takes people away from improving other areas of the encyclopedia.

   One of the things I've been thinking about a lot lately is whether it's better, when encountering paid editing, to focus on the contributor or to focus on the actual content. Our usual approach is to block the spammer and delete the spam, but then they return under a new username, and then we do it again. This takes a considerable amount of volunteer time, but it never removes the underlying incentive for wanting the article published, and so the cycle continues.

   I think there are several steps that we can take in the fight against undisclosed paid editing at this time:

   1. Improve our communication about paid editing. We need to be better at making it clear to people who know little about Wikipedia that they don't need to pay anyone to write an article. All they need to do is ask and one of us will do it for free. Currently this is the top result when I Google "should I pay for a wikipedia article", and that's an excellent start.
   2. Work with the WMF Legal department to make it harder for undisclosed paid editors to advertise and obtain clients without following our Terms of Use.
   3. Improve our messaging to make it clear that in most cases of UPE it's the subject, not the style, that doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. This could be accomplished by writing better templates, or by discussing the matter with the editor instead of just heading straight to the block button. Or it could be accomplished by getting more input at a consensus discussion at AfD, rather than a declined draft or a G11. These options might feel like more work than just deleting the page, but if we assume good faith and spend the time to tell someone how Wikipedia works it could do a better job at removing the incentive for undisclosed paid editing, and perhaps even at persuading the author to give the subject their money back.

   So far in 2020 the WMF and ArbCom have met 10 times (I have been able to attend 9 of them). It is worth noting that undisclosed paid editing has been a topic of conversation at every one of these meetings. It's also worth noting that after all that discussion I'm convinced that paid editing will always be a reality on Wikipedia, and that the best strategy for combating is that which made this encyclopedia credible and popular in the first place – an undying commitment to verifiability and maintaining a neutral point of view. – bradv🍁 18:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from S Marshall

2. You recently moved this BLP from draftspace to mainspace. Would you expect a new pages patroller to pass it? Would you pass it at AFC?

   I'm not sure what this question has to do with ArbCom, but I'll answer it anyway as I know this is an area you have been working a lot in lately. As a 12-year-old article that shouldn't be going through either new page patrol or AfC. The subject is alleged to be an elected politician, so they meet NPOL, but consensus at AfD could conclude otherwise if, for example, the main claims of notability fail verification. We do not have a policy allowing us to delete articles solely for being poorly sourced. – bradv🍁 18:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

4. The question is germane because it concerns your judgment and decision making skills. Thank you for agreeing that the article is poorly sourced. Can you see any other problems with it? Would you say it belongs in the mainspace?

   The article was created in 2008, well before the era of requiring an inline citation for every claim in a biography of a living person. In September 2020, you moved it to the draft namespace, citing two reasons: 1) that it was insufficiently sourced, and 2) that it was a machine translation. The first is not a valid reason for draftifying a 12-year-old article, and the second can't be right, as the content translation tool wasn't invented until 2014.

   My only involvement in this article is that I reverted your incorrect move. Your recourse if you disagree with that action is to nominate it for deletion, per the instructions at Wikipedia:Drafts#Requirements for page movers: If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD. – bradv🍁 01:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

6. I'm afraid my position is that you're mistaken. It's true that this article pre-dates the content translation tool; but other forms of machine translation do exist, and did exist in 2008. This is, self-evidently, the product of one --- most likely a paste from Google translate. I will ask again, and the purpose of my question is to help others to evaluate your judgment and decision making skills. Does that article, which you placed in mainspace, belong there?

   You moved a 12-year-old article to draftspace in blatant disregard of the criteria for doing so. You have not identified any speedy deletion criteria that pertain to this article and you have not made an argument that the subject is not notable. Rather than presenting whatever concerns you may have with the article at AfD, you unilaterally moved it to draftspace, without any input from others, in contravention of the draft-space guidelines and the deletion policy, and you misused the page-mover user right while doing so. So yes, it belongs in mainspace, unless and until someone makes a policy-compliant argument that it doesn't. – bradv🍁 03:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Natureium

2. What amount of humor do you consider to be appropriate for Wikipedia and do you support arbcom becoming less stuffy? Natureium (talk)

   Arbitration is serious business. You can tell how serious it is because Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Jokes is a red link. – bradv🍁 14:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And it's no longer a red link. Slashme has taken it upon themself to create the page, with a joke that measures up to the quality one might expect from a bunch of stuffy arbs. Good job. – bradv🍁 20:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

I'm asking all candidates the same questions.

2. The Arbitration Committee is not a court of law, but it has often been suggested that it is 'judge, jury, and executioner'. I'm not asking you to comment on that, but my related question is: Should the Committee base its Findings of Fact and Proposed Remedy(ies) purely on the prima facie evidence presented by the complainant(s), or should its members have a duty to thoroughly investigate the validity, accuracy, and/or veracity of those complaints? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   The structure of an arbitration case is designed on the assumption that interested parties will submit evidence, and the system does not expect arbitrators to go looking for evidence, either to prove or to disprove a particular accusation. However, I think there is a very reasonable expectation that the committee will ensure evidence is accurate and complete before acting upon it, and that the committee will make every effort to remind affected parties to submit evidence in their defence.

   In situations where the committee has made an erroneous decision based on incomplete or inaccurate evidence, that can be revisited in the form of an amendment request, and I feel strongly that the committee should be open to such challenges. As you say, the Arbitration Committee is not a court of law, and is by no means infallible. – bradv🍁 01:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia's drama board at WP:ANI is open to comment by any and all users. This could possibly affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even reveal a consensus that might not always be the most equitable. On Arbcom cases participation (sometimes throw-away comments) from uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also colour the objectivity of members of the Committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. My question is: In your opinion, how valid is such participation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   Arbitration is a community process. Even if there are only 15 people that have a vote, there should always be opportunity for everyone to have a voice. Comments from the community on case requests, motions, talk pages, etc. are all very valuable, as they provide insight and information that individual arbitrators may otherwise lack. Additionally, this dialogue helps the committee to improve communication and transparency, as everything works better when the committee and the rest of the community are on the same page. – bradv🍁 01:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Bradv: Thank you for your answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Newslinger

2. Under what circumstances would a dispute over the use of unreliable sources be considered a conduct dispute?

   The reliability of sources is a content decision, and therefore is solely a community decision. If there is a demonstrable community consensus that a particular source is not reliable, but someone ignores consensus and persists in using the source anyway, then that can be handled as a conduct issue. If there is no such consensus, but the dispute devolves into edit warring, personal attacks, violations of the civility policy, or accusations of bad faith, that also would be treated as a conduct issue. Basically, as long as parties are editing in good faith and are not disruptive, it remains a content question. When that collaborative editing process breaks down, that's when we start to examine the behaviour of the participants to try to get the process back on track. – bradv🍁 03:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from A7V2

I am asking the same questions to all candidates.

2. How do you feel about this statement from the WMF, in particular the line "On these issues, there is no neutral stance"? Should there be topics on Wikipedia which are except from WP:NPOV? A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   I agree with that statement that there is no neutral stance when it comes to racism. But what they're really advocating for in that statement isn't exempting certain topics from NPOV or calling for Wikipedia articles to be rewritten using a particular point of view; they're arguing for a more welcoming, civil, inclusive community – a community that reflects how society ought to be. I am wholeheartedly in favour of that effort. – bradv🍁 15:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

   One of the problems in how we edit today is that far too many people have adopted WP:POLE as their personal style of editing. This leads to studies like this one, where people are categorized based on which POV they are pushing, and every dispute gets divided into "winners" and "losers". I believe this is all wrong. All contributors have a duty to edit from a neutral point of view – to do the research, read the sources, and write without inserting their own biases or preconceived notions. Those who adopt WP:NPOV as their personal editing style are rarely, if ever, sanctioned. – bradv🍁 15:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from AmandaNP

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

   Systemic discrimination is always a hot-button topic on Wikipedia, and tackling it requires focus in two areas: 1) article content, and 2) editor conduct.

   With regards to article content, the Arbitration Committee has a role in upholding and supporting the content policies adopted by the community, such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. While most of this work is reactive in that the committee normally only responds to issues that are brought to its attention, committee members are also leaders in the community, and can also affect article content simply through their role as editors.

   The second area, editor conduct, is much more conducive to action from the committee. Editors who are persistently uncivil or unwelcoming, or who push particular points of view that undermine our basic community values, ought to be reminded of these values, encouraged to follow them, and, when necessary, prevented from participating in the community. As an aside, one of the best ways to fight systemic discrimination is by attracting new editors, particularly those from minority or underserved demographics, and ensuring they are properly onboarded into the community, and I think the committee also has a responsibility to make sure these new editors are treated well.

   Lastly, one of the duties that the committee also has is to protect Wikipedians from harassment and discrimination, particularly when such behaviour is not readily apparent to the community. This can take the form of off-wiki harassment, outing, or political threats against editors. In the past year on the committee I have helped deal with many such issues, and I find these opportunities some of the more rewarding to deal with, as this work has a demonstrable positive effect on people's lives. – bradv🍁 20:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

   As a member of ArbCom for the past year, I have investigated and voted on countless appeals from blocked editors. In many cases these appeals are straightforward, but there were a number that stand out in my mind as complicated and needing in-depth review. Occasionally we find that the blocking administrator has made a mistake, in which case we try to talk to them to understand if there is something we missed. In other situations, the blocked editor has a clear understanding of what they did wrong and a plan for how to act going forward, in which case we can often unblock them without risking further disruption.

   One of the things I have learned is that it's really important to constantly remind myself that I'm dealing with real people. Not only are the appellants real people (whether or not they are contributing in good faith), but the blocking administrators are real people too. They are valuable, committed volunteers, and we need to make sure that they are appreciated for what they do. As long as people are doing things for the right reasons, and have the requisite talent, skill, and willingness to learn, community leaders should encourage them, give them the tools they need, and support them in their efforts. I wouldn't be here today if people hadn't extended me that courtesy, and I try to do the same for others.

   With regards to the specifics of the systems you mention, these need to be continually evaluated. The systems only work as well as the people who staff them, and when people show interest in working in certain areas, or when no one shows an interest in working in a certain area, we may need to update our processes as a result. I'm thinking particularly of the paid editing queue at the moment, as this queue does not seem to be very well staffed at the moment, and most of the blocks for paid editing appear to be done by admins who are not privy to the information in that queue. That probably requires a rethink.

   You have asked for independent thought – I'm always happy to present ideas, but no individual arbitrator can really do things on their own. At the end of the day I'm just one vote, and if I can't consult with my colleagues and share ideas, I won't get anything done. But if we work together, we can continue to keep things fresh and running smoothly, and I always appreciate an opportunity to be a part of that process.

   I know this answer might be rambling a bit, so if there's something I missed please ask a followup question. – bradv🍁 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from IP user 2600:1004:*

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

   I'll direct you to my answer above, in which I contest the article's characterization of two "sides" in every controversial article. It is rare for a Wikipedia article to be developed solely by editors who are pushing particular points of view, and most of them are instead contributing in good faith, using information taken from reliable sources. If there are errors left standing in article for long periods of time, which can occasionally happen, it is usually the result of error or oversight rather than intentional bias. The single example given in the article you linked does not prove otherwise. – bradv🍁 01:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Atsme

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

   No, administrators who work in arbitration enforcement areas are not authorized to act "unilaterally". They remain accountable to both ArbCom and the community, and their decisions can be appealed and overturned, at AN, AE, or ARCA. I don't know whether you are referring to a specific case or a hypothetical situation, but it sounds to me like something that is worth reviewing.

   You may also be interested in my comments above relating to DS reform, which I would like to see accomplished by next year's committee. – bradv🍁 03:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

4. There have been some issues involving long term surveillance/analysis of veteran editors by the same few admins who oversee controversial topic areas. Some concern has also been expressed regarding the modification of DS by a single administrator to custom-fit the surveilled/analyzed behaviors of targeted editors. Do you think such activity makes the admin involved and possibly even prejudiced against the targeted editor(s)?

   That would depend on the specifics of the case and the individuals involved, and I think I need more detail in order to answer. Could you point me to where these concerns have been expressed? – bradv🍁 03:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bradv, thank you for your responses. You said, No, administrators who work in arbitration enforcement areas are not authorized to act "unilaterally". It appears either you or I have misunderstood the enforcement procedures at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Expectations_of_administrators wherein it specifically states: Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. Atsme 💬 📧 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  I took your usage of the word to mean that administrators weren't responsible for their actions and could act with impunity, or in your words "with more authority than ArbCom". But yes, the policy does say "unilaterally", meaning that administrators can act without checking with anyone first. A better term for this is probably "first-mover advantage", as the administrator who acts first in a situation has the advantage, and another administrator who disagrees has a much bigger hurdle to climb ("clear and substantial consensus") in order to overturn that action. That is something that I would like to see addressed with DS reform. – bradv🍁 16:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from DGG

2. I think I may be among the people who have expressed the concern that Atsme has in mind. Based on her comments elsewhere in this election, Atsme is probably referring mainly to my comments on an admin's talk page in a discussion of their use of DS in the American Politics area here, and explained as applying to not just that area (or that admin) in response to the similar concern of another editor) by my further comment here , and recognized by that admin in their response here and also acknowledged by that admin's modification of their use of sanctions (this is not a complaint about the individual) . So I ask you specifically whether in your opinion involved ought to refer to involvement in the same matter, or with the same editor, or both.

   Our policy on INVOLVED administrator actions provides an exception for interactions with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role. However, this policy is designed to prevent administrators acting in situations where they might be biased or unfair, or where their actions may be reasonably construed as being biased or unfair. Therefore, when such concerns are expressed, it is appropriate for these actions to be handled by another administrator or reviewed at an appropriate noticeboard.

   With respect to the larger question about discretionary sanctions, I would like to see us tweak the system to increase accountability between administrators and reduce the potential for a single administrator to significantly influence an entire topic area. I don't have a specific agenda on how to accomplish that, but as I stated above, it's time for us to have this conversation. – bradv🍁 23:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from StraussInTheHouse

While retention of productive editors and administrators is rightly considered important for the continuation of the project, the conduct of all editors, especially trusted users such as administrators is also rightly considered important for the retention of other users. I consider these two issues which are, unfortunately, often intertwined to be the most pressing types of issues to the project which ArbCom tends to deal with. I am therefore asking all of the candidates the same questions irrespective of whether they are a former Arbitrator. Many thanks and all the best with the election! SITH (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

   I participated as an arbitrator in all three of those cases, and served as a drafter in one of them. I believe I've been fairly thorough with the explanations for my votes, so I'm wondering if I can refer you to my votes in those cases rather than rehashing them here, with the expectation that you'll ask me a followup question if any of them are unclear.

   Broadly speaking, I agree with you that retention of editors with advanced privileges is important, as is the ability to attract and retain newer editors. If I can make one broad statement about all three cases, and about administrator status in general, I would say that the refusal of administrators to be held accountable for their words or actions, particularly when those words or actions are dismissive of or hostile to newer editors, is a principal factor for me on whether someone should retain access to the tools. Or, put another way, if you want to be a leader, you must act like one. – bradv🍁 16:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

4. Last year, there was a substantial dispute regarding the WMF ban of Fram. When, if at all, should a conduct issue (aside from emergencies, legal threats, child protection etc.) be dealt with by the WMF and was ArbCom's response to the WMF reasonable?

   I've been rather vocal about that incident, so I'll refrain from repeating myself here. I will say, however, that I agree with the letter sent by the 2019 ArbCom, as well as the findings of Question 8 of the recent anti-harassment RfC, which both concluded that conduct issues pertaining to the English Wikipedia should be handled by the English Wikipedia governance processes and not by the WMF. Support staff have a role in liasing with authorities on issues such as physical threats, legal threats, and child protection. They also have a role in liasing with outside organizations on issues like off-wiki harassment of our editors. But they do not have a role in adjudicating conduct or content disputes on this project, and I've been adamant about maintaining that line during my term on the committee. – bradv🍁 16:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Bradv, thank you for your responses to both questions and the broad note in Q1. I've now had chance to review your comments on each case, I'm satisfied that no follow-up questions are required on my part. Regards, SITH (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Fæ

The Electoral Commission is collapsing this question as a violation of Fæ's topic ban on human sexuality, broadly construed [6]. We have also removed a part of the question that improperly speculated about an election candidate. Candidates may still respond to this question if they wish by editing the collapsed content. For further discussion on this matter, please see this thread and this ANI thread. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The context of this year's variety of candidates is that CaptainEek "expects recognition as gender neutral" on their user page, and seems to be the only candidate making a statement about LGBT+ identity on their user page. Do you support the proposed statement in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review of Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns and would an editor's failure to meet this basic standard of respect be harassment, or is the failure to respect pronouns "banter" that non-binary and genderqueer people must expect and not complain about if they contribute to Wikipedia? Yes, I support that statement. Basic human empathy demands that we use the terms that people choose for themselves, and that we avoid pejorative terms or words that make people feel unwelcome or unappreciated. While I certainly am not perfect at this, I am learning, and people react gracefully when I slip up. With regards to the infamous "It" essay, I stand by the comment I made at the time. – bradv🍁 17:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Epiphyllumlover

2. During this coming term, would you like to see ArbCom continue the trends described in The left-wing bias of Wikipedia by Shuichi Tezuka and Linda A. Ashtear, or would you prefer it if ArbCom tacks in a new direction?

   Achieving and maintaining a neutral point of view on Wikipedia is a never-ending battle, but the state of things is not nearly as bad as that article implies. For example, it mentions a number of sources that are deprecated as "right-wing", but the real reason is simply that they don't have a reputation for fact-checking. The article also tries very hard to classify editors into different POV-pushing camps, which is also not accurate – the majority of our editors are working hard to maintain a neutral point of view. Regardless, the neutrality of our articles is an editorial decision, and beyond the scope of what the Arbitration Committee ordinarily handles. – bradv🍁 01:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

4. What lessons can you draw from the downfall and dissolution of the ArbCom which formerly served the Spanish Wikipedia? (for reference)

   That was a long time ago, but from that write-up it sounds like the Spanish-language ArbCom declined too many case requests, and therefore wasn't effective at solving problems or resolving conflicts. While the English-language ArbCom also hears far fewer cases now than it did in 2009, the community has also evolved significantly since then such that most disputes are resolved long before arbitration is ever needed. Nevertheless, an elected body that can handle sensitive permissions requests, private evidence, and a court of last resort for complex disputes is an asset for Wikipedia, and I'm glad we've kept ArbCom around. – bradv🍁 15:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Mrwoogi010

2. Since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can sometimes be seen as pretty confusing, especially for new members, how do you plan on approaching problems in which a new editor is involved in a case with the Arbitration Committee? _Mrwoogi010^✉ 20:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   New editors usually don't have much to do with the Arbitration Committee, which is probably a good thing, as ArbCom proceedings are really complicated. We do have a team of clerks who are tasked with helping people with procedural issues, and generally most people are willing to help someone who is struggling to share their perspectives. Even outside of ArbCom, we do have some very confusing policies and guidelines, but we also have friendly versions of many of the basic instructions, such as Help:Introduction (accessible from the "Learn to edit" button in the sidebar), and there are some fantastically helpful and patient people who staff the Teahouse and the Help desk. Helping to onboard new editors is something that I'm passionate about, and I'm very grateful for the efforts of those who dedicate themselves to this task. – bradv🍁 01:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from The Land

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

   Yes, I support this statement. Basic human empathy demands that we use the terms that people choose for themselves, and that we avoid pejorative terms or words that make people feel unwelcome or unappreciated. I'm not perfect at this, but I am learning, and I always appreciate gentle reminders when I slip up. – bradv🍁 01:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

   I think the process that the WMF chose to develop this document is a reasonable one. As I commented above, I do hope that this process concludes with a movement-wide community ratification, after which we'll be able to work out what changes are necessary, if any, to the English Wikipedia policies and enforcement methods. – bradv🍁 02:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Instant Comma

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

   In my opinion, the biggest challenge facing Wikipedia is editor retention. I wrote some things above about the challenges of fighting against undisclosed paid editing and advocacy in general, but these things are only possible if we have enough contributors to maintain our processes. AfD is one example of a process that is chronically understaffed in terms of not having enough people to do the research and provide meaningful !votes, but the process itself is essential to our ability to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia.

   I don't believe there is a magic solution for increasing editor retention, or even for driving editor recruitment, but there are many little things we can do to help. We can work to maintain a friendly, welcoming environment. We can try to reduce drama and conversations that distract us from writing an encyclopedia. We can be better at onboarding and helping struggling editors to find their way. And we can deal with disruption promptly and decisively. ArbCom certainly has a role to play in these efforts, but real change will only happen when we all work together to make this a friendly, welcoming, collaborative editing environment. – bradv🍁 03:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you! Instant Comma (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Genericusername57

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

   These two policies are about different things. We can respect other contributors by using the names and pronouns they prefer, and we can refer to article subjects using the names and pronouns given in reliable sources. – bradv🍁 03:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Grillofrances

2. Where can I find a list of all the ArbCom cases created since the beginning of 2020? I've found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_arbitration_cases but there are mainly very old cases.

   Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2020 – bradv🍁 20:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Robert McClenon

Being asked of all candidates

2. Sometimes when a dispute is described either in a Request for Arbitration or in a report to WP:ANI, an arbitrator or administrator says that it appears to be a content dispute. Many cases that are dealt with by ArbCom are fundamentally content disputes, except that conduct interferes with orderly resolution of the content issue. How would you assess when a dispute requires arbitration due to conduct issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   I think you basically answered this one yourself – a content dispute becomes a conduct issue when the conduct of the editors prevents orderly resolution of the content dispute. Once a dispute crosses this line, some sort of administrative intervention is usually required in order to get the consensus process back on track. If those efforts fail, and if other dispute resolution efforts prove unable to resolve the conflict, it is appropriate for ArbCom to get involved. – bradv🍁 23:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

4. Another type of case that is sometimes heard by ArbCom that is not a content dispute may be a case about an editor who has a long block log, but who is also a content creator, and another editor requests arbitration because they state that the subject editor is a net negative to the encyclopedia. (Such a situation will almost always involve an editor who has a combination of positive and negative contributions, because a difficult editor who is not also a content creator will be indeffed as not here constructively). Do you have views on when ArbCom should accept cases involving difficult editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   ArbCom should only get involved if the community has been unable to resolve the issue, or if there is good reason to believe that other dispute resolution efforts would not be productive or effective. This is the question we try to answer at each case request, and I believe we've been fairly consistent lately at maintaining this line. – bradv🍁 23:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions from David Tornheim

2. Do you feel that the close of WP:ACERFC2020 was accurate in its determination that a consensus of the WP:community wished to limit the number of initial questions asked to ArbCom candidates to a maximum of two? Was the WP:RfC adequately advertised to the WP:community? --David Tornheim (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

4. Would you be willing to answer additional questions to these two on your talk page, since I am limited by that close to only asking two? The questions I would ask would be these --David Tornheim (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)