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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

information 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.

Questions from George Ho[edit]

  2. The WMF has proposed the Universal Code of Conduct for a long while. What is your feedback on the UCoC?
    My understanding is that it is primarily to be used on smaller to mid-sized projects where there are serious issues. There's a globally banned LTA who turned one small-wiki into a personal fiefdom and blocked anyone who supported LGBT issues. That possibly could have been headed off earlier with a UCoC.
    At the same time, I've been critical of the expected behaviour section . In volunteer groups a set of positive expectations phrased as expectations rather than guiding principles can too often be pointed to in order to get rid of people with minority positions. I would very much like to see this language changed.
    In terms of its relation to en.wiki, I'm a big believer that things should be handled at the lowest level possible when possible. I think as a whole, en.wiki has a functioning way to handle behavioural issues-- with community intervention being the first and most effective step. I would continue to view community intervention as the primary method of dealing with conduct issues, even with a UCoC. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Which ArbCom cases have affected you the most personally as a Wikipedian, even when you agree or disagree with the decisions made, and why?
    I was the filing party in the Mister Wiki case. I think it reached the right outcome, but it was emotionally draining and was also my first case as a participant. It involved a long-standing administrator involved in declared paid editing, and some implications around that.
    After that I think German war effort involved a case of clear hounding and harassment by an account that immediately began harassing another user, and that should have been handled at a community level but wasn't. This was a failure on multiple levels, and I presented the clear evidence against harassment leading to a site ban. There were non-harassment elements to that case which I'm less familiar with, but for the part I was involved with, it impacted the way I viewed harassment and also formed a preference for community intervention if possible before it gets to the arb level. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Follow-up question to Q2: Thanks for the cases above. How about other ArbCom cases that you weren't involved in but still have most affected you personally?
    I don’t really edit that heavily in DS areas, and I tend not to follow cases involving individuals if I’m not planning on taking part. I’ve actively worked in the Arab-Israeli content as an admin, though, and I think the rulings around that have probably had the most impact outside of things I’ve followed as they’re still fairly complex and interpreting them consistently and fairly can take effort, even after attempts to streamline them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda[edit]

  2. In 2013, we had WP:ARBINFOBOX. In 2018, Voceditenore commented this. Would you agree?
    My understanding of the dispute isn’t that there was one side was opposed to all infoboxes and one supporting them, but that some editors feel they aren’t appropriate for some classes of articles. In that way, I’d agree that for many articles, the inclusion of an infobox isn’t controversial. In the cases where it is, ideally it’d be sorted out on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me, but that doesn't answer my question. - Thank you for standing, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t phrase it as bluntly, there are still editors who disagree with using them in some articles and will engage in discussion over them. In the type of articles I’ve edited most I’ve always used an infobox without controversy and I’d agree that for many articles there’s no controversy at all. So, I guess I’d agree in part that they’re being used more frequently without controversy as compared to 2013, but note the caveat that there are still some disputes that crop up over them. I hope that’s clearer. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearer. I could name two disagreements of just yesterday, but I see a big difference between (normal) disagreements and war. In 2013, and several times before, the arbitratators were called to pacify what was perceived as a war, no? And where are we in that respect? What does this tell you, for example? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from PR[edit]

  2. I'd like to ask you about Linas's unblock request. To summarise (in a way I think is fair): a blocked editor edited on a static IP for 6 years before being caught. The case ends up at AN with a torn split, half believing he should be unblocked because he had 6 years of good contributions, and the other half believing he shouldn't due to a mixture of (a) he didn't make the request himself; (b) blocked means blocked; (c) his behaviour in response to his block evasion block was inappropriate. You didn't express an opinion at AN, but you did reply that block evasion is a ban, and in your statement mention you are strict in relation to socking. So, I'd like to ask a two part question:
    1. If that was an ArbCom case, where would you stand?
    2. Do you see any distinction between BKFIP and Linas? In other words, is there a difference between a disruptive LTA, who persistently returns to disrupt, verses a long-term contributor who was blocked and then had positive contributions for 6 years? Or do you believe they should be treat the same?
    1) we recently had a third party appeal by a user blocked where I was the blocking admin. I was contacted privately and the short of it was willing to unblock if the user wanted it. At the time they didn’t. When you’re dealing with the sensitive nature of a lot of the blocks ArbCom deals with, the blocked party not wanting to be unblocked or have a case heard very much is a real thing, which is part of the reason for a lot of these we ordinarily expect someone to ask. To your specific question: if I were an arb I’d refer it to the community or blocking admin. It’s not a CU block and the information is publicly known. I’m running on a platform that’s essentially that the community should be doing more where it can, and ArbCom should only step in where it can help. The community status quo, while somewhat awkward, isn’t likely to be improved by an internal discussion of 15 people on a mailing list.
    2) I just blocked a BKFIP sock, and I don’t think the distinction you’re drawing is quite fair to him. BKFIP is very often right and productive. He also has an acerbic personality that makes his long-term editing untenable, which is why he is community-banned. I think that’s fairly similar to the Linas situation: an editor who is productive in some areas but behaves in a way that led to a block and that still has the same tendencies that led to it years later. In both cases it’s a question of what the community is willing to tolerate. To your bottom line question: I think every case in unique and should be judged independently when it comes to unblocks. The totality of the situation needs to be considered, and I’d again echo that I think usually the established community process of talk page appeals, followed by AN if there’s disagreement, usually leads to the best outcomes.
    I hope that answers your questions, if a bit long... TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-script: I think I did express an opinion arguing they should make an appeal themselves. Just pointing that out here for transparency. Doesn’t change my answer: letting the community decide either way, even if it’s not how I would handle it, would be better than an ArbCom resolution in this case.
    It does; good answer, thank you. (1) was slightly badly worded on my part, I was more trying to gauge your opinion of the situation, but I grabbed that from (2). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You state (slightly separately) in your last two paragraphs (a) that the Bbb23 situation was mishandled, and (b) that ArbCom should only intervene when it can actively improve the situation. Generally speaking, since ArbCom, and the Ombuds, are the only bodies able to see CU data and enforce the CU policy, aren't they obligated to investigate & respond to violations regardless of whether their intervention improves the situation (or even if it does the opposite), or if they believe the violating actions were a net positive?
    When I spoke of the Bbb23 situation I was firstly criticizing my own reaction. Bbb23 was a friend, and if I were on the committee I’d likely have recused like Katie did. I wasn’t the only one who wasn’t happy, but I was the most public. I don’t think that improved anything. On the list we had a discussion and everyone eventually came to an agreement on what the principles behind the policy were. I think starting there rather than criticizing would have been better
    And yes, I agree that ArbCom has a responsibility to investigate good faith complaints that aren’t obviously frivolous. As ArbCom is the only body that can handle this locally, and usually faster than Ombuds, it should. That would always be an improvement on doing nothing if there are actual concerns. As I mentioned a bit earlier in my statement, I’ve submitted multiple complaints to the Ombuds Commission over the past few years (all involving non-en.wiki CUs) because I take this so seriously. CU is a useful tool and prevents a lot of abuse, but it’s use must always be balanced with the privacy of our users, and as a body, ArbCom is charged with protecting that privacy locally. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and best of luck! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung[edit]

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) 01:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Context matters. Without context, you could find diffs to sanction almost anyone. Being able to understand what was going on when someone did something matters when you’re talking about sensitive situations involving sanctions over things people care deeply about. It’s what enables us to not act like robots. Luckily, diffs come with a history before and after, and it’s fairly easy to search what was going on at the time on a page or related pages. At the same time, I don’t think each arb should conduct their own independent investigation. That wouldn’t really be feasible given the size of the cases. It’s a balance between taking diffs at face value and going off on your own. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia's drama board at WP:ANI is open to comment by any and all users. This could possibly affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even reveal a consensus that might not always be the most equitable. On Arbcom cases participation (sometimes throw-away comments) from uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also colour the objectivity of members of the Committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. My question is: In your opinion, how valid is such participation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m running on a platform that essentially says the community is better at handling most disputes over time than ArbCom is. While the dramaboards certainly have their flaws, a final resolution reached there is usually less controversial and has more of a sense of closure than a case, oddly enough.
    At the same, you can railroad people at ANI, and if one group targets someone it’s hard to stop it. In these cases, ArbCom can serve as a body to give the person whose conduct is being examined a fair shake. In such cases, all evidence should be examined closely and the volume of voices shouldn’t necessarily have an impact on the outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni: Thank you for your answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Newslinger[edit]

  2. Under what circumstances would a dispute over the use of unreliable sources be considered a conduct dispute?
    I’m sure there are more, but the most obvious one to me would be when a user systematically uses unreliable sources to push an agenda—whether civilly or with incivility. Civil POV pushing in particular can be difficult to deal with and frustrating to good faith users because they often have no real venue to turn unless they’re familiar with the intricacies of the backend of Wikipedia’s content dispute resolution process. At some point this civil POV pushing using unreliable sources becomes sanctionable as behaviour when it impedes the ability of good faith editors to build a neutral encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Calidum[edit]

  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?
    That RfC didn’t reach any firm conclusions and was designed as a summary style of various views in the community. I participated in it, and some of my views were mentioned in the summary: particularly that ArbCom is not a court and providing court-like protections when it comes to harassment on a website isn’t ideal for a variety of reasons.
    In terms of unblockables, I think Amory had the simplest solution in the RfC: block them. This can be done at a community level through discussion at a noticeboard or by individual admin action. The easiest way to implement many of the ideas in the RfC is for admins to enforce existing policy. If elected to ArbCom, I’d take a similar approach: if something rises to the level of needing sanctions to protect the project, sanctions should happen, regardless of who the user is. On the flip side, someone shouldn’t be sanctioned just because some people view them as an unblockable to prove a point. Whatever actions are taken must always be in the best interest of the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Why wait until the last day to enter the election?
    I wasn’t sure I wanted to run until I transcluded. I did so as soon as I made up my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from A7V2[edit]

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)[reply]
    I don’t think it’s a particularly controversial thing to say that racism is bad and that we shouldn’t be neutral as a movement as condemning it. Even within articles, giving WP:FRINGE ideas such as white supremacy being good equal coverage is in itself a NPOV violation since it would be WP:UNDUE.
    I additionally think the WMF was discussing internal project issues and how we can combat any racism within our communities. While there’s ample room for disagreement with the WMF over tactics, them saying that internally we should have stance that does not tolerate racism is obviously good. I’ve advocated for blocking neo-nazis and their ilk on sight, and I stand by that: it’s not an NPOV violation to say that people who think some of our contributors are sub-human are not welcome here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is at least a perception of left-wing bias on Wikipedia, both regarding content and internally (for context see [1]. One of the examples given is that for matters relating to Donald Trump, the 2016 US election and Brett Kavanaugh, editors making broadly "pro-Trump" edits were disciplined 6 times more than those making broadly "anti-Trump" edits, but this is not to say this was or wasn't justified). Do you believe this perception to be true, and whether you believe it is true or not, what, if anything, should be done to address it? A7V2 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Open source projects like Wikipedia tend to have a fair number of left-libertarians, and I’d agree that our editor base is probably left of center. It’s just the demographic that’s attracted to contribute here. I think as a whole on larger articles we do a pretty good job of countering that bias—there’s enough people who care about Trump and his more high-profile associates that our consensus system is going to gravitate towards a middle ground just in order to accomplish something. I think the real danger would be on more obscure articles that will have less people interested in them. I haven’t done a survey; but I wouldn’t be shocked if a significant portion of those likely needed some cleanup. In terms of how to address it—I’d say use the standard content processes. Edit boldly. Discuss as needed, get a third opinion when necessary. If there are behavioural issues, ArbCom might get involved, but we also have the AP2 discretionary sanctions to deal with chronic POV pushing. If it’s chronic, file a request at WP:AE and hopefully that will resolve it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AmandaNP[edit]

  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?
    Unfortunately this issue has been politicized in some circles, so I don’t usually talk in language like that, but yes, I do think everyone has a role in helping stop systemic issues whether as an individual or part as a group. As an arbitrator I think the biggest thing would be taking the harassment concerns seriously: not all minorities choose to self-disclose, but women in particular are likely to be targets of harassment in an online environment. Taking these concerns seriously and acting as needed is a big thing everyone can do. From a case perspective, I think the way to do it is to have a firm commitment to listening to what people say their concerns are and factoring it into the final decision. ArbCom can’t make policy, but it can listen to others and factor what people are saying into its motions and remedies. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The role of CheckUser and Oversight are given to every arbitrator on request. CheckUser regularly requires experience to interpret results. Given you have a vote in how proceedings involving the overturning of checkuser blocks, the enforcement of the CU/OS policies including the privacy policy, and the appointment of new functionaries, how does your experience show that you can place independent thought into such decisions? I'm not asking about how you defer to others as that is not showing independent discretion and thought. (Cases relevant: {{checkuserblock-account}} blocks where the behavior doesn't match but technical evidence does, accusations of violations of the privacy policies by two former functionaries, and the lack of appropriate staffing of venues - OTRS oversight, checkuser and paid editing queues, ACC CheckUser queue, and IRC Checkuser and oversight requests)
    I think I addressed this a bit in my statement, but I think I’d bring a good perspective to the committee on these matters: with KrakatoaKatie, I’ve been running most of the CU trainings since 2019. I’m also willing to ask questions about prominent editors and administrators where there’s socking involved: I was the CU who discovered the Edgar181 situation, I helped in the investigation concerning Ciphers who at the time was a CU on ar.wiki, and recently conducted the investigation into EllenCT, who is now a WMF-banned user but at the time was an established but quirky editor. I think each of these cases show that I’m willing to exercise independent thought and judgement when it comes to dealing with the more high-profile socking cases which can be easy to ignore.
    From an oversight perspective I think I have a fair amount of experience as well: locally I was one of the people who complained that Alex Shih had CU blocked an opposer in an RfA where he was the nominator, and on the global level, I’ve sent in Ombuds complaints about multiple individuals for improper disclosure of IP addressees, and at one point initiated a discussion about how globally there didn’t seem to be a consistent practice, which as I understand it was one factor which led to Ombuds Commission clarifying this for the global CU team. I’m also somewhat regularly approached by stewards and CUs from other projects asking for advice on the privacy policy/CU policy, and I think that is because people know I take these things seriously and am willing to give straightforward advice even when things are complex. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: you and I have discussed this before in various appointment rounds privately and you have the benefit of knowing my thoughts, but since you’re commenting on others thoughts on appointments I’ll say it publicly for everyone’s benefit: functionary appointments are one of the more sensitive things ArbCom does, and while yes, there’s a lot of politics involved, appointing someone who is popular with the community but who might have concerns that wouldn’t make them a good functionary isn’t ideal, and conversely being willing to stick your neck out and argue for appointing good people who understand the task but have made enemies along the way if they’d be an asset to the team is important. There’s a reason en.wiki continues not having this be RfCU and RfOS: a lot of the issues here can be sensitive and multifaceted and being able to have a private discussion is very important, especially when you’re almost by definition dealing with the emotions of valued community members.
    Community feedback and vetting is part of that process, but it is not determinative. Additionally, I think the functionary feedback round is a pretty critical step that a lot of people don’t have that much insight into: most arbs aren’t active with the tools and don’t know the current needs on a day-to-day basis, the functionary team is able identify those more readily and also identify individuals who would be best suited to help in those positions. Conversely, there are people who likely could have been appointed if it weren’t for the on-list feedback round, and where many functionaries likely wouldn’t have felt comfortable speaking freely so publicly. One of the things I think ArbCom has traditionally handled fairly well is how it oversees these, and I would be hesitant to change much because of how sensitive a process it really is, and because the current process is designed to allow independent thought while also getting appropriate feedback. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IP user 2600:1004:*[edit]

  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 think I addressed this in my response above, but I actually consider this the greater danger than high-profile articles being biased. It is extremely easy for a small group to dominate the talk page of an obscure controversial figure, and achieve consensus that way. If it involves BLP violations that’s a pretty significant concern. In such cases, AE exists as does WP:BLPN. Seeking outside input is the best way to avoid these situations rather than letting them fester. This goes equally for less high-profile left-wing figures, as there are right-wing editors on this sight and they can just as easily form groups as left-wing ones. As for if ArbCom should address it: I think it largely has already through the DS system. There’s not much else ArbCom can do outside of a formal case request and even then it would have to look at the actions of individual editors. Of course, if an admin is systematically using DS in a biased manner, that could be an issue for a case request if it was clearly intentional to undermine NPOV, but I personally haven’t seen that yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Atsme[edit]

  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?
    If you look at my answer below and my nomination statement, I've been very clear that I think dispute resolution reaches the best outcomes when it is resolved before it gets to ArbCom, and that ArbCom truly should be the option of last resort. I think a radical reform of DS would result in more ArbCom cases, which I don't think would be a good thing: many of the type of cases you saw 10-15 years ago no longer exist because of the DS system. I don't think a wholesale reform of the basic elements of the system is needed.
    I do think it could be simplified and a lot of the bureaucracy reduced. The basic goal here is fairness, and we've added a lot of elements in an attempt to make it fair that just makes it difficult for more members of the community and administrators to participate. A simplification of the system of notices, appeal locations, templates, page notices, talk page banners, edit filters, etc. would really open the system up to more review, transparency, and participation from people with different backgrounds on the project, which would likely result in outcomes that are better. While I would not be for removing the ability for individual administrators to act and for requiring consensus to remove, it is my hope that more participation would yield better results.
    As for the administrator misconduct part of your question regarding DS, since the DS system is under the authority of ArbCom, it can always be reviewed by the committee, and that includes the actions of the administrators involved. Generally, admins should not act against an emerging consensus with DS if a thread is at ANI, and if there was a trend of actively implementing DS against opposition and in a way that people considered fundamentally inappropriate, the committee could request an individual admin not use DS, either formally or informally, and in extreme cases of abuse of the DS system such as with involved actions could desysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There have been some issues involving long term surveillance/analysis of veteran editors by the same few admins who oversee controversial topic areas. Some concern has also been expressed regarding the modification of DS by a single administrator to custom-fit the surveilled/analyzed behaviors of targeted editors. Do you think such activity makes the admin involved and possibly even prejudiced against the targeted editor(s)?
    I think that'd be difficult to prove, but if it occurred without good reason then yes, it would be concerning if one admin was just following an editor around waiting for them to slip up. You can sanction anyone that way as we all have bad moments. At the same time, this is an open source project and there are occasions when it is appropriate to monitor contributions of editors (copyright, sourcing issues on BLPs, etc.), so I'm not gong to say it is universally a bad thing. There might be a reason that arises in a DS area to look at others contributions regularly. It's something that needs to be resolved in the context of specific cases, and is extremely sensitive to what the facts at hand are. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Moneytrees[edit]

  2. "I’ve also been critical of this year’s committee for being more active than I think necessary." Just curious- aside from BHG and the Bbb23 situation, in what ways?
    In general, I think this committee is more liberal in considering cases than is good for the community. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports is the perfect example of something where the outcome was pre-determined, anyone who saw the case request knew it would have ended that way, and if it had been returned to AN or ANI would have been closed within 72 hours with the same result. There was no reason at all to take that case.
    While not pre-judging any potential future evidence or developments that I might vote on that may occur on the current elements request, as it stands its the perfect example of what I was discussing in my platform/nomination statement of something that may be within scope but does not currently appear like an ArbCom case would do anything to help: a complex topic requiring advanced academic training, that is only of interest to a niche group of editors, where none of the parties involved initiated the case request, and as of now only one of them wants it. Even if it is intractable, the only way such a case as currently constituted would end would be ArbCom making a de facto content decision by sanctioning one of the few editors involved despite the fact that no one named in the initial request (before DePiep was added) thinks its a good idea for ArbCom to be involved.
    It doesn't take a PhD in chemistry to see that ArbCom taking that case would be unlikely to make Wikipedia better, but we have discussion about novel remedies (accepting and suspending), an acceptance, and general discussion about something that in previous committees I suspect would have likely been declined by now as not benefiting from ArbCom. This hasn't been accepted yet, but I think its a good example of what I feel has been a willingness to take on things that in the past had been in decline for the committee to take on. I think all current committee members are acting in what they feel is the best interest of the project, but that a mindset has developed that is more willing to consider becoming involved rather than being a true body of last resort.
    I think this is understandable post-FRAM, where a committee was reacting to the idea that if we didn't handle things, the WMF would step in, but I also have faith that community resolution is usually better and more final if given the chance to occur. My general view is that the committee should when possible stress that the community can handle things, and show that it believes this by actively returning cases it is unlikely to resolve in a better way than the community would to the community without any stipulation. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As a follow up to that question, what do you think are the alternatives to arbitration in the Elements case?
    Pretty much anything, to be honest. Ignoring the question of scope: it's extremely unlikely that 15 people, most if not all of whom don't have any background in an extremely niche topic with technical knowledge required, will come to a positive result based on a simple majority vote deciding who has behaved poorly in an area they don't know anything about. The case request wasn't filed by someone who was actually involved with the dispute, and the parties don't want it. A case now wouldn't be beneficial for any of these reasons, and I don't find the Sword of Damocles approach of accepting a case and suspending particularly fair either. A niche content dispute between a limited group of people gets dangerously close to ArbCom deciding content, and that route should be avoided if at all possible.
    In terms of actual productive suggestions: if the community wants sanctions, they can impose a comment limit (i.e. 2 per discussion or something of the sort) and see where that gets it. Or you could let the parties try to sort it out like they said they would and if they think a new request is needed, let them file one and it can be ascertained then if arbitration is needed at that point. There's little difference between an ARCA Asking for an unsuspend case request and a new case request except the ARCA would take longer and have less comments. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Would you have voted to accept or decline with regards to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung?
    I would have recused. Kudpung is a friend and we worked very closely together to get WP:ACTRIAL and WP:ACPERM off the ground. I am also on good terms with many of the people who presented evidence in the case. I think the only fair option to all involved would have been for me not to take part. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Salvidrim[edit]

This question was a bad idea and it reflects poorly on me that I even brought it up. Sorry. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You presented the ArbCom case that led to my desysop. Other than that singular misstep of underestimating how carefully COI must be managed, I had been a pretty uncontroversial admin in general, but when up for scrutiny (RfB, etc.), a lot of people rallied to denounce me, not because of my actions as an admin or my involvement in on-wiki drama but more for who I am in general, being extremely transparent and posting stuff on Reddit, etc. which people passed judgement on. My first RfA squeaked by closely and a later RfB was tanked severely due to some lewd Reddit posts on NSFW subs. Although I feel like I would be perfectly able to continue helping the project with the admin mop, as I did from 2013 to 2018, patrolling database reports and closing DRVs, MRVs, XfDs, for which I was even sought out as a closer sometimes... I have thus far refrained from seeking an RfA because I am afraid that a portion of the community will oppose for personal reasons (such as "oh no he's lewd on reddit") instead of reasons related to my ability to help Wikipedia as an admin. There have long been criticism of RfAs as popularity contests with cliques and haters and all that jazz. Do you have any ideas, concrete or broad, that could improve the RfA process by focusing less on an applicant's personal life and judging their moral character, and more on their potential ability to serve as admins on English Wikipedia? (I want to clarify that I would perfectly understand if you decline to answer this question due to our history and the bias I brought into the premisce.)
    I think your question has a lot to do with your own situation, and while I do think RfA isn’t the most fun process, I’m not really sure how to fully answer your question in a way that’s relevant to both what you’re asking and the Arbitration Committee Election. That’s a non-answer; I’m aware, but I don’t think this is the right place to discuss whatever concerns you have with RfA and your experiences with RfX. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear[edit]

  2. 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 think it depends on the conduct that led to the sanction. I think there’s absolutely no reason to desysop when a simple IBAN is involved on its own, unless there was significant harassment. Sometimes those can be given two-ways even when one party wasn’t at fault (that’s part of the system.) Not sure what you mean by rate limits, but if you mean something like 1RR in a topic area, I also wouldn’t necessarily support a desysop as that’s usually pretty low-level and doesn’t necessarily reflect a loss of trust.
    If a topic ban has been proposed, on the other hand, I think a desysop should be considered even if not ultimately occurring. That’s where you’re getting close to the point of clear behaviour that can reasonably be assumed to cause lack of trust. I don’t necessarily think it should occur every time, but it is something that I think does need to be considered when a topic ban against an admin is brought up. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from StraussInTheHouse[edit]

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)[reply]

  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?
    On Portals, the BrownHairedGirl desysop was particularly ill thought out. Some of the findings of fact were overstated (the one about calling false statements lies, in particular, I expressed extreme concern over.) I think BHG had gotten burnt out and was sometimes being rude, but I wouldn’t have desysoped her. A warning would have sufficed.
    RHaworth I was the filing party. If someone intentionally overturns a CU block without discussing with a CU, they should be desysoped. There were other factors in that case as well, but this principle is important and it’d be one I enforced.
    Kudpung I’m basically on good terms with all the major actors in that case on both sides, and like I said above, I’d have recused. I’m still not really sure how I feel about the case: I do think Kudpung acted in ways that I wouldn’t have towards people, I also don’t think anyone had ever actually discussed it with him. On the whole, that case was a sad situation—if only from the human perspective—and since I’d have recused, I don’t want to say how I would have voted beyond recusal. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    Incidents of continued harassment of other human beings after you’ve already been banned locally are a good way to earn a Foundation ban. Then there’s obviously the legal issues that the committee shouldn’t be handling. There might be other cases, but if it’s just an on-wiki thing where the local community hasn’t acted because it wasn’t considered bad enough, unless there is a major concern (real life stalking, etc.), it should be handled by the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Fæ[edit]

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)[reply]
  2. 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?
    People should call people whatever the person says they want to be called. It’s a respect thing. I’ll caveat that and say that a lot of people still use the generic he because that’s been around in English for a while, and I don’t think using it without thinking is harassment, but yes, if someone says to call them they, and you call them he or she intentionally, that’s just being a jerk and disrespectful, and isn’t appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mrwoogi010[edit]

  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✉ 20:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They almost never are, as the Arbitration Committee involves intractable disputes between usually well established editors, so I don’t see this as an ArbCom problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from The Land[edit]

  2. D you support the proposed statement in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review of Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns? Regards, The Land (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d refer people to my answer to Fæ’s boxed off question above. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    I don’t think much would change on en.wiki. Like I said, I’ve always gotten the impression this wasn’t aimed at us. I haven’t been following the drafting and development of the UCoC, so can’t really comment on it. My answer to George Ho pretty much sums up my thoughts, so I’d point you there. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Epiphyllumlover[edit]

  2. What do you think it will take to get the average age of wikipedia editors to go down instead of up?
  4. Do you think ArbCom is like the House of Commons (or House of Representatives), and the WMF board is like the House of Lords (or Senate)?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a ridiculous question. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to accept your choice not to answer it. Maybe you have some ideas about the first one?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m intentionally not answering it for the same reason I expressed in my answer above. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit] makes an interesting comment concerning "the essence of bullshit" on page 10 of the pdf. This comment was quoted and applied to Wikipedia by Don Fallis, then at the University of Arizona. After reviewing Frankfurt's explanation, state whether Wikipedia's concern about venerability instead of truth falls into the trap of valuing bullshit, and why you think so. In your discussion, explain whether you think this contributes to the phenomenon of trolling on this website, given that several studies on Wikipedia trolls have found that bullshitting is what they do. (Studies: Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls and Trolls, bans and reverts: Simulating Wikipedia)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta‐analysis, the findings seem completely at odds with the approach to diversity taken by the WMF. Do you agree more with the paper, or with the WMF, and why so?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Natureium[edit]

  2. We seem to be getting to the silly questions now, so would you mind identifying what your least favorite wikipedia article is and why? Natureium (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiger versus lion. It’s literally an article about who would win in a fight. You’re welcome, question readers, for this levity in your day. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Instant Comma[edit]

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

Question from Genericusername57[edit]

  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?
    Calling someone by a religious honorific could violate the beliefs of another, which we don’t want to do. I would say that we should treat all people, regardless of religion or lack thereof, with respect. If there’s a name they want to be called and it doesn’t conflict with your beliefs, there’s really no reason not to call them that. I wouldn’t enforce it as policy, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Grillofrances[edit]

  2. Is the CheckUser tool valuable nowadays as it's easy to edit Wikipedia by the same person from various devices (desktop, tablet, phone...) and various networks (home, work, mobile, public), and sometimes even from various cities and countries (when traveling)?
    Yes. Most people aren’t that good at hiding from it and those that are aren’t perfect. The usefulness of CheckUser lies in human nature, not the technical aspects. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Candidates/TonyBallioni/Questions&oldid=993286469"