Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Hawkeye7/Questions

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 Gerda

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

   With the comment? Sure. As far as I know, things are calm now. I certainly hope that they remain that way. I think it is like the old retentionist vs deletionist conflict that still bubbles under the surface. The content of infoboxes frequently remains the subject of disagreement. I personally don't put a lot of effort into infoboxes, but I include them in every article I create. I use them as a checklist to ensure that I have the minimum data required to create the article. I've always thought that the case should not have been taken if there was no intent to impose a firm ruling on whether or not infoboxes should be included in articles. I felt that the editors in question were more that capable of reaching an agreement among themselves, and that being the case, that rulings were unproductive and unduly harsh.

Questions from George Ho

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

   I think the UCoC is a fine document and have no concerns about the wording. The real issue has always been the desire of WMF to avoid responsibility for the activities of the community, and of the community to manage its own affairs (or at least a vocal group within it). The UCoC is an acknowledgement that the former is increasingly untenable in a global environment where social media platforms have been implicated in support of serious crimes.

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?

   Obviously my own desyopping. It has had a decade-long limiting effect on my ability to contribute. Over time, some of the bits have been restored, permitting certain activities like template editing and page moving that are so necessary to the content creation process. While I accepted the penalty, it remains a very poor decision, mainly because failed to resolve anything. The person at the heart of the case was in no way prompted to address and reform his behaviour, and was back before ArbCom again in a few months. Similarly, dishing out a harsh penalty to me failed to deter other admins from doing the very same thing. It failed to grapple with the core issue of vested interests, and was seen by some as a tacit endorsement of the principle that some wikipedians occupy a privileged position. It lowered the estimate of ArbCom in the eyes of those who saw it as basing judgements on political calculations. And procedural issues like voting for findings of fact that they knew to be untrue at the time reduced faith in the arbitration process itself.

6. Follow-up question to Q2: Besides the "Civility enforcement" case, how about other ArbCom cases that you weren't involved in but still have most affected you personally?

   Well there was the German war effort. On the one hand, there was a clear case of harassment, which I was handled poorly, like most cases of that ilk, where ArbCom has sought to protect the privacy of the harasser and not the victim. But ArbCom then attacked two MilHist coordinators who were acting in good faith, and were experts on the subject. This is a classic case where I the lack of content writing experience by too many members of ArbCom results in poor outcomes. And they concluded with Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated. Given the way that ArbCom defined uncollegial behaviour, it is unsurprising that the former did not step forward.

8. Follow-up question to Q1: I asked the same question to other candidates of this year. Barkeep49 wrote one's own thoughts about it. For comparison, what can you say about their feedback toward the UCoC?

Questions from Kudpung

I'm asking all candidates the same questions.

2. The Arbitration Committee is not a court of law, but it has often been suggested that it is 'judge, jury, and executioner'. I'm not asking you to comment on that, but my related question is: Should the Committee base its Findings of Fact and Proposed Remedy(ies) purely on the prima facie evidence presented by the complainant(s), or should its members have a duty to thoroughly investigate the validity, accuracy, and/or veracity of those complaints? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   It is accepted that sometimes some evidence has to be submitted in camera, but the principle is that judgements should be rendered on the evidence presented on the evidence page in the interest of transparency. Arbs should not attempt to play Sherlock Holmes, should not send private emails to the case participants, should not be accepting be accepting rumours or what they read some guy say somewhere. These practices must cease.

4. Wikipedia's drama board at WP:ANI is open to comment by any and all users. This could possibly affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even reveal a consensus that might not always be the most equitable. On Arbcom cases participation (sometimes throw-away comments) from uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also colour the objectivity of members of the Committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. My question is: In your opinion, how valid is such participation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   The signal to noise ratio is poor on ArbCom cases, and even worse at ANI. I have my doubts that they influence the Arbs decisions, or that they read them.

Hawkeye7: Thank you for your answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 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?

   When it becomes disruptive or unprofessional. That's a pretty broad mandate. The problem with unreliable sources is that a common tactic of people unable to win an argument on its own merits resort to attempts to declare sources unreliable. Or better still, all publications from a certain publisher. The absolutist argument that a source must be considered reliable or unreliable goes against the historian's training to evaluate sources. Even the best sources may have errors and biases. Some more article writing experience would not go astray here.

Questions from Calidum

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

   I wouldn't have gone so far as to to call them "findings", but really the ball is in ArbCom's court. If they want blocks to be handed out more frequently, even against the unblocakables, then they will have to support the admins who had them out. If they want people to believe that all wikipedians are treated equally, then ArbCom will have to start doing that. In they want more cases to come before ArbCom then they will have to accept more cases.

4. Why wait until the last day to enter the election?

   Indecision and procrastination. Normally all the heavy hitters pile on at the last minute, so I wasn't expecting to be the last one in (and indeed, I wasn't).

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) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   Not the way we define a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It does not mean that we adopt a neutral stance in the article, and indeed on some subjects there isn't one. It only applies to our content, and with respect to content, all Katherine Maher was calling for more articles on topics related to Black, indigenous, and people of color, akin to the efforts of the Women in Red project. My reaction at the time was that she was taking an overtly American stance in a global forum.

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) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   As the article points out, the more editor attention an article receives, the more neutral it becomes (a process known as "grey goo"). The greater concern was the allegation of bias by ArbCom, although the sample size is rather small. The best solution would be to have a more diverse and representative ArbCom.

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?

   Yes, I think that ArbCom does have a role in preventing systemic oppression from happening on Wikipedia. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over prior cases, and has a broad mandate for dealing with editor behaviour, which has been enforced with discretionary sanctions. What has often been lacking in the past has been a clear statement that harassment will not be tolerated, and the will to enforce the rules we already have.

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)

   The technical evidence from CheckUser is IP addresses related to users. This is strong evidence, but not conclusive, insofar as the same computer could be used by multiple editors, and one relatively nearby (served by the same provider) could be using the same IP address range (since in many cases IPs are not fixed, but allocated from a bucket). There would need to be some evidence that is the case to overturn a checkuser block. Usually though, the deal breaker is WP:DUCK.

Questions from Worm That Turned

2. I'm afraid I find your explanation of your desysop in your candidate statement rather disingenuous, "I blocked an editor after taking this as a personal attack, oblivious of the wider implications." - The "wider implications" was that you reinstated a block which did not have community consensus, despite participating in the ANI discussion. That sounds a lot more like wheel warring, and a lot less like obliviousness. Now I appreciate this was a bit over 8 years ago (again, not quite matching your statement), but I'm concerned by the way you have put this to the community, when a modicum of research (say, reading Proposed decision) would show the inaccuracies in your statement. Would you say my reading of the situation is incorrect, and how so?

   By "wider implications" I was referring to the political implications. It was it fact a long-running saga (but one that was in fact far from over), the full details of which I was not fully aware at the time. The decision was a collective one, taken in the belief that the user in question was going to continue disruption until blocked, and that this would not constitute wheel warring. But I took the action and the responsibility and penalty was mine. ArbCom's statement that there was an existing community consensus against the initial block was patently false; rather, there was repeated efforts to pre-empt and preclude such a consensus from forming, in the knowledge it would. And if I recall correctly, weren't you the one who has argued that ArbCom should base its decisions on a political calculus?

   I've responsed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Hawkeye7#Oblivion, per current guidance. Worm^TT(talk) 13:04, 19 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?

   It's definitely a problem, and my attention has been drawn to examples. Such problems, along with hoaxes and patent nonsense, have been known to persist for years. The crux of the problem is too many articles and too few editors willing to work on them. The relevant guideline is WP:SOFIXIT, but there is little scope for ArbCom. As for WP:BLP, I've always felt that it was a policy that lacked a rationale, and as a consequence always stands on shaky ground, and is therefore ArbCom cases waiting to happen. As I pointed out in a Signpost article, WP:BLP read broadly would seem to imply respect for an individual's right to a fair trial, but there was no consensus for this.

Optional question from Stifle

2. How do you feel that you will be able to discharge the role of arbitrator effectively without adminship?

   I don't see the role of arbitrator as routinely requiring the use of the admin toolset. Checkuser and oversight can be conferred separately, if indeed required. I don't believe that arbitrators as need to personally perform actions such as blocks, page protections or revision deletions; I think that goes too far towards being executioner as well as jury. The main tool missing that might potentially be required is the ability to view deleted history entries. There was some thought in the past of unbundling this, but it never went anywhere. WMF has stated that it is willing to grant it to arbitrators for the purpose. I really don't think it is absolutely necessary though. I do have experience with admin work, and personal experience of what it is like to be one a participant in an ArbCom case. Admins who feel they would not be judged fairly by a non-admin arbitrator should consider how non-admins feel about an ArbCom consisting entirely of admins.

Question from Nosebagbear

2. Related to Stifle's question above. Were you to be provided with CU, OS, viewdeleted (though I believe it's bundled into OS), and of course, the inherent blocking authority of arbcom, do you feel that would start to undo either some or much of what makes you a "non-admin", including the positives that diversity of opinion might bring?

   You're quite right; it is bundled with OS, so CU and OS are the only access levels possibly required. My view of the Wikipedia would otherwise still be that of a non-admin. Arbitrators have no blocking authority per se; that derives from being an administrator. And of course I would revert back on expiration of my term as arbitrator. An important factor is bringing a content creator's perspective to discussions, and this would not change.

Optional question from Dreamy Jazz

2. I asked this question to SMcCandlish, and I feel its fair to ask you too. Feel free to answer this or not answer this. I'm all for having non-administrator(s) in ArbCom. However having the tools as an arbitrator for reviewing deleted content is useful, and I am sure that at some point you may need to see deleted content (leading to it needing to be emailed to you or pages restored temporarily). As you mention, the WMF may unbundle the viewing deleted content to non-admin arbitrators, but this may take some time. Also, arbitrators can block users as an arbcom block, and this has been used in off-wiki cases. This leads me to my question. In light of the benefits and downsides of not having the sysop tools as an arbitrator, if you are elected would you consider having an RfA to gain the sysop tools to assist you as an arbitrator (as opposed to becoming an administrator permanently)?

   The benefits of having the sysop tools are great for a content creator even without being an arbitrator, but I have no plans to run an RfA again at this time.

Thanks for your answer. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:58, 21 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?

   The first principle is that when ArbCom creates a mess, it becomes ArbCom's responsibility to clean it up. All ArbCom rulings can be appealed and modified. The entire DS regimen is subject to review and reconsideration by ArbCom at any time. It has been around for quite some time, and perhaps it is high time for reconsideration and reform. Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions, and they must not be involved. That having been said, where an admin acts in accord with procedures laid down by ArbCom, it is incumbent on ArbCom to support that action. Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgement by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions. I can only note that in at least one case, ArbCom came down on an admin enforcing the predetermined set of sanctions for which it had given no discretion. Responsibility remains with ArbCom, even when authority is delegated. Desysopping is the most severe penalty that we have, and I could not endorse it under circumstances where an admin has acted in good faith.

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)?

   Targeting of particular editors is harassment, and will not be tolerated. Most controversial topic areas are overseen by a small number of admins. That in itself does not make them involved, so long as their activity is purely administrative. That having been said, we all know that there are some scary people working in DS-AE. Moreover in recent times, there has been a disturbing trend: the admins and bureaucrats who have gone off the rails have not been newly-minted ones, but the old hands. We should consider limiting that time that admins work in such areas.

• Thank you, Hawkeye7. It's encouraging to know that we have several candidates who are willing to plug-up some of the holes in our trusty old ship, and who are actually aware of the holes out of sight below the water line. Atsme 💬 📧 22:16, 22 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?

   Retention of productive editors and administrators is rightly considered important for the continuation of the project. The conduct of other editors, particularly administrators, is an important factor in editor retention, and unpleasant interactions with other editors is a major factor in editors departing. That having been said, I was shocked at these cases. Desysopping is the most severe penalty we have. The expectation is that half of all desysopped admins will leave the project. I thought the penalties handed down were harsh. I would not have voted to desysop BrownHared Girl. Given the work that she performs on categories, and that the dispute was purely about portals, desysopping was both unnecessary and counterproductive. In the case of Kudpung, no evidence was presented of abuse of the admin toolkit, and therefore there was no issue that desysopping could address. The whole case comes down to official endorsement of the WP:Super Mario effect but with no consideration of blocks or bans, one has doubt if any action would have been taken against him had he not been an admin. In the case of RHaworth, a bright line was crossed in overturning a checkuser block. But I would have been inclined to take the explanation provided at face value. I have no doubt that you can edit for years without ever seeing a checkuser block.

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?

   The wider global community has become increasingly less tolerant of the wild west attitude common on the early internet, a trend that will certainly continue, and the old hands are going to have to adjust to this. WMF will have to deal with such matters whether it wants to or not. Overturning an office action is a bright line. We cannot allow or tolerate it. ArbCom's response was reasonable and measured, but it was forced to concede that it had "struggled to handle civility and harassment complaints in a way that adequately balances privacy against transparency". I felt saw the issue primarily as a challenge to its own authority, and one of governance, neglecting more important issues.

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) 21:42, 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?

Questions from usernamekiran

1. Hi. I respect your work a lot in MILLHIST. But I am very curious about this: On June 12, 2019, during the WMF Fram controversy, you asked then-bureaucrat WJBscribe to resysop you despite being desysopped for a reason by Arbcom. When you were reverted as trolling, you reverted stating you were serious about it. Like DeltaQuad/Amanda said above, arbs can get CU on request. If you become an arb, would you request for the re-sysop again by invoking IAR like you did in June 2019, and what would be your reasoning (rationale/logic) for requesting/not requesting? (First part of the question was originally asked by User:1989 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 3.) —usernamekiran (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   To clarify what I have stated above: I will not request a re-sysop. This would not be under IAR: the authority already exists under the current rules. But I am not going to request it. I have left the door open on CU/OS, but will not request that either unless I feel that it is absolutely required. The reason is that I don't want people to think that I am running for ArbCom as some sort of hat collecting exercise. I am running because I believe I have something to contribute, and can collaborate with the other arbitrators to make it a better, fairer, and more transparent process.

Question from Mrwoogi010

2. Since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can sometimes be seen as pretty confusing, especially for new members, how do you plan on approaching problems in which a new editor is involved in a case with the Arbitration Committee? _Mrwoogi010^✉ 21:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   The ArbCom process can be bewildering to the newcomer. The very role of ArbCom is not obvious, and the first mistake newcomers make is expecting arbitration. Even old hands come to ArbCom expecting a thorough investigation, an incisive judgement, and a clear resolution to a dispute. In most cases, involvement with ArbCom occurs when one is party to a case, and that's the worst possible time. I think newcomers should have an experienced editor assigned to mentor and advise them and guide them through the daunting process. The information pages on ArbCom have been steadily improved, but perhaps could stand some review. We should also revive the ArbCom section on the Signpost to keep people informed about what is going on.

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)

   Everyone is entitled to their own form of address. Their user name should be used even when their real name is known.

4. So just to be clear is that 'yes', or something else? The Land (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

   Yes. If James Tiptree Jr. was a Wikipedian under that user name, then we would use the masculine gender pronoun selected by the editor even if we knew the gender of the person behind it is different. I've always been half hearted about the user name concept, and if I was the one who created the Wikipedia instead of Jimbo, we would all be here under our real names.

6. 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 (if anything) 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 there was a good consultation process, and many changes and suggestions were taken on board. I don't foresee the code of conduct leading to any major changes or a plethora of ArbCom cases.

Questions from Epiphyllumlover

2. The Mapping Wikipedia article from The Atlantic states that there is a geographic imbalance among Wikipedia editors. Do think ArbCom contributes to this? If so, what might you do to fix it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   Hardly surprising. This is the English language Wikipedia, and the English language is a vestige of the old British Empire. In Australia, we always had a bit of envy of countries that had their own language. At one point there was an attempt to create an Aboriginal language Wikipedia but the utility of a Wikipedia that in a language the hardly anyone speaks was questionable. So we're stuck with the Americans, too many of whom seem to have forgotten all they were told back in school about being a good international citizen. I'm not talking about righting great wrongs, just demanding the basics.

Question from Instant Comma

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

   Internet blocking. We have already had the Wikipedia blocked in China, Turkey and other countries. This is disappointing; I had twice worked on the English Wikipedia in China, and had full cooperation from officials there. A major risk is the United States, because the servers are housed there. The US ranks 45th in press freedom according to JSF, which isn't bad, but US officials twice threatened to cut the US off from the rest of the world in 2020, and they have the power and ability to do it. We need to have backup server sites elsewhere, so all our eggs are not in the one basket. We need to develop workarounds where Wikipedia is blocked or access restricted to enable viewing and editing to continue.

• Thank you! Instant Comma (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from User:Dicklyon

2. A few days ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history you stated, "Determinations made at MOS are strictly local consensus, and we can and do override them here" [7], and "Each wikiproject establishes its own style rules." [8]. This seems to fly in the face of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is a policy worked out over many years to help avoid this kind of project-specific style deviation from the consensus style expressed in MOS guidelines. ArbCom has repeatedly ruled that Wikiprojects can't do things like this (especially on style matters). How do you reconcile your long history of flouting general style consensus in favor of the local MilHist preferences with this widely accepted policy? Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

   You mean Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history? It is already part of the MOS, one of many specialised guidelines associated with particular projects. What I said was no less than a restatement of our policy: that a small number of editors cannot override a global consensus. That applies to Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style as much as any other WikiProject. (Note: I was in error here; that project is defunct.) It has no special status. I'm not sure where ArbCom found the fact in the Infoboxes case that "It is not clear to what degree, if any, the views of editors with a particular connection to an article (e.g., the editor who created the article or knowledgeable members of a relevant wikiproject) should be accorded any added weight". (My guess is WP:Randy in Boise.) My position is that people who know what they are talking about will present more reasoned arguments.
   
   I don't have a long history of flouting general style consensus! I have a long history of writing articles conforming to the consensus. Over time, that has become increasingly difficult, and I fear that it has become a deterrent and a barrier to article writing. I am not advocating that a local consensus overrides a global one. Local consensus among a limited group of editors, such as through a Wikiproject or talk page discussion, does not override wider community consensus. A discussion on the MOS talk pages involving a small group of editors is insufficient. That kind of thing only undermines the claim of the MOS to reflect project-wide consensus.
   
   Consensus is not something that is handed down; it is something that needs to be built up.

4. The long history that I recall relates to MOS:JR at this edit of yours in 2016 and others around there relative to MOS:JR. There's no Wikiproject MOS; it's a WP-wide thing with very broad support. A recent ArbCom decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Levels of consensus unanimously says "Local consensus among a limited group of editors, such as through a Wikiproject or talk page discussion, does not override wider community consensus." The idea that "people who know what they are talking about" should get their own way on style issues is outside the general consesnsus. Your expertise in MilHist is great, but shouldn't give you any special privileges on style issues. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

   I hope you don't think I was attacking you as ignorant and unreasonable; that was not my intention, and certainly not my opinion of you. I remember MOS:JR; there was an RfC to prefer omitting the parenthetical comma. Hence global consensus, but it was only preferred, not mandated, and the RfC also recommended "grandfathering" older articles. I reacted only when I started seeing broken links. I don't think it could be construed as overriding consensus. I point out that Manned Orbiting Laboratory, currently at FAC, does conform to MOS:JR. The Medicine case is likely what MOS:JR could have wound up like if it had gone to ArbCom: Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. I do not claim any special privileges on style issues.

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?

   I don't see that aspect of the code of conduct as overriding the text and spirit of the rest of the code of conduct, nor our current Wikipedia:username policy, which holds that usernames must represent an individual person, and be truthful, appropriate, and support a positive editing environment.

Questions from Grillofrances

2. As a future ArbCom member, are you going to above all just vote, or will you try to always achieve a consensus, at least within the ArbCom?

   I hope to be able to provide the perspective of a content creator and non-admin to discussions. I will not be there just to vote. People will find me to be one of the most visible and engaged arbs. I am committed to publishing my thoughts on the pages where everyone can read them, and see a bit more of what goes on. Achieving a consensus within ArbCom is important if one wants to get things done, and is something to strive for. I hope to be able to build good relationships with the other Arbs, but at the same time I'm not afraid to be part of a dissenting minority.

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) 16:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   Usually when this happens we are dealing with a newbie editor under the impression that ArbCom performs arbitration, and will adjudicate content disputes. For a case derived from a content dispute to be accepted by ArbCom generally requires exhaustion of the regular path for dispute resolution: discussion, obtaining a third opinion, seeking community input, dispute resolution and general sanctions. This can be short-circuited in cases where there is disputes where there is a matter of a sensitive or private nature, legal concerns, harassment, interference with office actions or allegations that are very serious indeed.

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) 16:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   The majority of our most difficult editors perform little or no content creation work. In the case of a difficult editor who is also a content creator, ArbCom action to protect the editor is seldom productive and the best course of action is to support our processes.

Questions from David Tornheim

2. Do you believe there should be a deadline for ArbCom to rule on appeals filed at WP:ARCA per these ([9], [10]) ArbCom policies? Do you feel it would be beneficial to have more process deadlines for ArbCom action in cases where there currently are none? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   If you are asking whether ArbCom should respond to ARCAs in a more timely manner, then the answer is that I think that it should. Especially when ArbCom takes such a dim view of foot dragging by others. Some of the ARCA cases are fairly straightforward, and if the workload is too great then we could consider a subcommittee system.

4. According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   Because Encyclopædia Britannica has different editorial processes and different editorial imperatives. There was a common fear that endless editing of articles by hordes of editors would result in "grey goo" whereby all the originality and brilliant prose is leached out. There was also a fear that the compendium of knowledge would degenerate into a reservoir of commonly-held myths. We have enough of these for military historians to publish books on zombie myths. But Wikipedia, through its processes, and to the surprise of many, has managed to avoid these outcomes, and has somehow become the place where people go to find the facts. There is a great demand out there for comforting counter-factual misinformation, but people will have to find it elsewhere.