Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/SMcCandlish

SMcCandlish

I've been rather active for most of my 15 years here. The pandemic is giving me more available time than usual. Serving the community in this capacity for a term would be a good use of a lot of it.

This solid though unusually small candidate roster (plus the Arbs not yet up for re-election) show me the time is now. This last ArbCom has been the most constructive I've seen in years, and many candidates share key concerns and goals. While competitors for seats, they're people I'd love to work with to improve ArbCom. And ArbCom works best without an Arb shortage.

I want to help ArbCom be more consistent, more transparent, less bureaucratic, less reluctant to amend. Our dispute-resolution systems exist to settle disruptive conflicts quickly, toward productivity. This hasn't consistently happened. Incivility and PoV-pushing are increasing, editor retention drops, discretionary sanctions has obvious problems. Sometimes-problematic editors should be separated from areas where they're disruptive, but too often just get lengthy blocks. Such issues can be rectified, and I have the time, patience, and experience to help.

I've long been involved in Wikipedia policy, RfCs, and advanced-permissions janitorialism (TemplateEditor, PageMover, etc.), but I work on content and am here as an encyclopedia editor, not an admin. Adminship often leads to permanent drift away from a content focus, so I decline RfA nomination offers. I've been concerned that most Arbs have been admins; that doesn't fully represent the community.

I'm not afraid to plainly address the facts, policies, and principles at issue, even if it makes some people unhappy. I'm also already steeped in time-consuming, thankless work that cannot possibly please everyone but which produces results the community doesn't just live with but depends on. It's unusually good training for ArbCom, even if different from the more typical admin route.

Boilerplate: I signed the WMF confidentiality agreement years ago, and will do so again if the wording's changed. [Update: It has, so I will need to sign it again.] My user page lists my doppelganger accounts. I had one occasionally used alt ID, disclosed to ArbCom but not listed for privacy reasons (and no longer used).

• SMcCandlish (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 Gerda

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

   @Gerda Arendt: No and yes and maybe. :-)   "There haven't been infobox squabbles in ages" is a bit of an overstatement. Rather, infobox squabbles tend to be more localized, and less apt to be characterized by wikiproject-organized, OWN-ish behavior across entire categories. The debates I've seen semi-recently have been more appropriately focused on whether an infobox is helpful at a particular article for particular reasons, rather than being a FACTION fight along "death to i-boxes" vs. "i-boxes should be mandatory" extremes. I've also seen (and participated in) various discussions, mostly not too histrionic, about whether a certain parameter should be used this way or that (or be eliminated), whether to merge some i-boxes or Module-ize them, and other more technical discussions. As for "the general attitude from both perspectives seems to have settled on live and let live", this seems largely true to me, though I would not be surprised if there are exceptions. However, I can't speak directly to "There are a few diehards left", since the precise meaning isn't certain, and what I've seen myself isn't necessarily all that has happened since ARBINFOBOX and ARBINFOBOX2.

   Overall, I think the sanctions have done their job (and ARBINFOBOX2 may actually have had more impact despite its more limited scope). I do hope to see an editor who {{Retired}} over the matter come back. While the i-box stuff, and one other issue, relating to FAC, inspired that party to turn intemperate rather often, that was nevertheless an otherwise highly valued, long-term editor. I'll observe also that the sanctions did not result in a "the other side will WP:WIN and just impose i-boxes everywhere" result that was predicted by some of the generally-opposed-to-iboxes parties, though infobox deployment has increased a bit (which is to be expected given the general support they have among the community, especially frequent mobile users). All that said, I think I would rather have seen this handled with community general sanctions (GS) and ANI, rather than RFARB and ArbCom's discretionary sanctions (DS), though perhaps GS wasn't sufficiently "developed" at that time. It seems to be applied more (and more effectively) of late. PS: I'm kind of pre-answering some possible followup questions, so your second one can be about something else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up discussion moved to discussion page per new rules this year. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from George Ho

2. Long time no see. Anyways, the WMF has proposed the Universal Code of Conduct for a long while. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   @George Ho: I'm still mulling it over, and have yet to weigh in on it directly. I'll try to work my way through it in more detail (and with a lot of coffee), and post a more substantive reply. The short version for now is that the central idea "The Wikimedia movement needs a binding set of ethical guidelines" is reasonable, but the devil will be in the details, and some of what's already in there doesn't really have to do with just ethics. Writing policy is hard, and WMF has historically not been very good at it. The talk page over there is making for strange bedfellows. I find myself in "violent agreement" with points made by editors I often have little in ideological common with, yet I'm not persuaded by all pro or con comments of editors I more often agree with. My concerns are presently split between "separation of powers" issues, the kinds of cross-cultural conflict potential raised by you and others, and the fact that some respondents there are already chomping at the bit to use this to go after editors they simply don't like. I think it's going to get painfully messy, need a lot of revision, and spark more "this project's ArbCom versus WMF's insufficiently thought-out ideas" conflicts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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?

   Just for their sheer content scope, I would say ARBBLP (originally about footnotes but expanded to cover all disruption in biographies of living persons), ARBPS (as amended to cover all fringe matters), ARBGG (originally GamerGate, but since scope-expanded in actual application to much of human sexuality and gender), ARBEE (Eastern Europe, broadly construed also covering much of Western to Central Asia), and ARBAP2 (modern American politics). Overall I think they have been at least semi-effective in restraining a lot of excesses, though not without some fallout (some individual sanctions that probably aren't presently preventative, some "I just quit" responses from editors who could have been productive, etc.). It's harsh medicine, but sometimes it's necessary.

   A double-edged sword has been ARBATC (article titles, since expanded to include MoS). In my less temperate days, this one tripped me up personally, but I deserved it. It has been remarkably hard to get ArbCom or AE or random DS-using admins to apply it consistently/predicably or evenhandedly. It's been very difficult to use it to restrain certain parties who were grossly disruptive for years. Then ArbCom itself basically pulled the remedies' teeth out: The primary, continual locus of AT/MoS-related incivility, etc., is RM, by an order of magnitude, but an attempt to apply ARBATC there resulted in ARCA limiting the scope to just AT, MOS, naming conventions guidelines, subpages thereof, and their talk pages, period. I also have a separation-of-powers concern with ArbCom, essentially WP's judicial branch, applying DS to internal P&G deliberations, i.e. WP's legislative branch. Especially given that DS are today virtually never applied in this area, it would be better vacated, and any future issues of that sort dealt with via community GS at ANI or AN (or other non-ArbCom noticeboard).

   Finally, I have found ARBAA2 (Armenia and Azerbaijan, frequently scope-expandable to Turkey, Kurdistan, and related topics) very helpful, along with ARBR&I ("race and intelligence", now expanded to encompass any intersection of ethnicity and alleged abilities or behavior) in dealing with NOTHERE PoV-pushers (sometimes in very unexpected places for ethno-vandalism, like articles on housecat breeds!). I think that the second of those in particular is going to be a perpetual DS topic, and must remain so, while the former is part of a general class of "my people versus your neighboring people" conflicts that will always attract offsite "holy warriors"; it's likely this category of DS regimes [or something like them, such as community GS, if DS were to be retired] will grow.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:44, 18 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) 01:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   @Kudpung: There's a false-dichotomy risk here, but I would lean toward the latter. While ArbCom is not totally bound by precedent, it has already decided several relevant things and is very unlikely to reverse itself on them: Arbs are not generally in a position to ignore recent facts and [permissible sorts of] evidence they are aware of but which were not presented by parties. A claim without diffs or other serious evidence is just noise and may be sanctionable as ASPERSIONS. A claim with diffs is not "proof" of anything; the evidence is the diffs and what they show (including in their larger context most of which will be missing from the presented evidence due to length limits), not what a party or interjector claims about those diffs. Arbs may take it upon themselves to delve into matters when evidence and claims raise questions not clearly settled by the presented evidence (very often in the form of looking at previous noticeboardings, etc.). And so on.

   However, Arbs are human and have lives, and the community expects cases to not drag out indefinitely. There are limits to how much factuality assessment Arbs can be expected to engage in, just as we don't expect the superhuman out of admins taking blocking or topic-banning actions, or closers of RfCs to spend all month treating everyone's comment as a hypothesis to test in every possible way. (We do expect more diligence, though, because appeals of ArbCom decisions are only to ArbCom.) Equally importantly, it is not the place of an Arb to act (if we may continue with the usual legal analogies) as prosecutor or as defense counsel (solicitor). I'm aware of a specific instance of the former, in which an Arb went "dirt digging" about an ARCA party, seeking completely case-unrelated reasons to deny the appeal or amendment request, whether from "bad apple" suspicions, or past personal conflicts with the editor, or out of excessive zeal. (Was years ago, and I'm not going to point specific fingers; IIRC, the Arb eventually recused when the impropriety of this was pointed out.) An excessive expectation of "more than due" diligence would likely lead to a lot of such incidents, and erode the more important expectation that Arbs who arrive with (or during the case develop) a vested interest in or prejudicial [in the original sense: prematurely judging] expectation of the outcome should recuse.

   Finally, I would say that "validity, accuracy, and/or veracity" are not really interchangeable, and the first in particular is prone to subjective interpretation. ARBPOL doesn't lay out specific evidentiary rules or even much guidance (other than in the negative, e.g. prior off-site communication is usually not admissible), and this is by design. It is certainly possible that ArbCom needs to adjust aspects of how it approaches evidence assessment, but I am not yet privy to its real details.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:27, 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) 01:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   Kind of a two-parter. "Noise" at ANI and other noticeboards is "valid" as a matter of WP:EDITING policy, to which there are rare and enumerated exceptions. One of those is that ArbCom is actually empowered to restrict input at ArbCom pages (even remove it) as ArbCom sees fit. So "content-free" venting and blather at ArbCom pages may be deemed invalid by ArbCom, which has sensibly written a bunch of rules about participation there. Potentially useful (and rule-following) input from editors not truly parties is generally accepted by ArbCom, though Arbs and clerks have leeway to refactor to talk pages, "strongly advise" a revision, etc. Since community noticeboards don't operate that way, the bias risk that concerns you is much greater in them, but the closing admins and the community members who participate in them a lot are also already well aware of this, and it factors into how community consensus is assessed. If it were totally malfunctional, the community would change it. And we could be edging nearer at ANI in particular. I agree with the occasionally floated notion that noticeboards should impose some commenting restrictions inspired by but less stringent than those of ArbCom. AE's rather in-between model may be a good one to start with. (And some already have, e.g. ANEW.)

   I don't think that "bad" participation coloring an ArbCom decision to accept a case at RFARB would be much of an issue, beyond waste of time and some increase in stress level. If the rationales presented for sanction turn out to be nonsense, that will become apparent, and BOOMERANG is likely; same goes for "unclean hands" actions at AE, and frequently enough at community noticeboards, too. An inappropriate decline could matter more (in allowing disruption to continue), and a wrongfully skewed sanction or appeal-denial would be more serious yet. But it doesn't seem to be a common problem to me, because of the amount of deliberation and structure at ArbCom. (I say that as someone who has had ARCA clarification requests, RFARB requests, add-this-party requests, etc. declined when I would certainly have preferred otherwise; like everything on WP, compromises are involved and the goal is resolution of the problem in the best way for the community, not "getting satisfaction". I've written about that in some much more generalized detail at CAPITULATE.) Comparable "unjust punishment" results at community boards are more likely and common, but AN and then ArbCom are appeal venues, so there is a safety valve. I am of course open to evidence of egregious failures within recent memory, and would revise my take on this as needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   PS to @Kudpung: This talk-page addendum to Calidum's question is also relevant, in part, to what you asked.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: Thank you for your comprehensive and candid answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Darren-M

2. You authored a controversial Signpost article that was considered to be transphobic and was ultimately courtesy blanked. Do you stand by your decision to author that article?

   @Darren-M: Oh, that was definitely a double failure on my part. I drafted a crappy userspace essay, which was much later used as a Signpost "humor" piece. I certainly should have refused the request to reuse it, because in retrospect it was poorly written enough to both fail to make its actual point and, worse, to be misinterpreted as making a different and divisive one. I supported the result that it would be blanked from the Signpost, and certainly regret its appearance in there. It wasn't "courtesy" blanked, but blanked because it was definitely not appropriate for something that many editors took more seriously than I then did, as effectively Wikipedia's newspaper. However, "was considered to be transphobic" is an overstatement. Certain individual editors considered it be trans-offensive (and a handful even claimed without evidence and in the face of counter-evidence that it was intended to be so), simply because it had anything at all to do with pronouns. Most editors who commented were critical of it more narrowly, considering it a bad idea because it could be taken that way regardless of its actual intent. That's certainly a fair assessment, as is the common one that it was just unfunny and unhelpful no matter what its goal was.

   If anyone cares about the actual intent: It concerned attempts to pressure Wikipedia into using subjects' non-standard orthographic and grammatical and similar demands that serve a self-aggrandizement purpose, for commercial, religious, classist, or plain ol' egotistism reasons (i.e. JOBTITLES, TM, THECAPS, etc.). To the extent it could be also considered critical of attempts to impose the use of idiosyncratic neo-pronouns in Wikipedia's own voice, that would actually be a valid point: WP consensus remains not to use them, except as factual statements of an ABOUTSELF nature, thereafter using single they, repetition of the surname, writing to avoid doing either too often, etc. Cf. this ongoing discussion about that very matter. But that wasn't the real point of the piece at all, and it absolutely, positively was not about misgendering people, using deadnames, or anything remotely like that.

   The fact of the matter is that even the userspace essay was a half-baked attempt at humor conceptually, then just poorly written (with "lipstick on a pig" revision attempts not helping it much), and I should have recognized that some people would see the worst in it and become offended. I failed to predict this, and that was an outright failure by me. A worse error was my "sure, whatever" going along with the idea to reuse it in Signpost. While, just as a policy and precedent matter, I knew that the outcome of the later MfDs would be that the userspace page would not be deleted and that the Signpost copy would not be outright deleted, just blanked, that doesn't mean I'm proud of the waste of time or the unnecessary community angst. I'll have to deal with that indefinitely, since it can always be dug up again. It has resulted in off-site verbal attacks and other issues, also for the former Signpost editor who wanted to run it. We will continue to pay a price for these mistakes.

   On the upside, I have studiously rethought the optics both of actual approaches to TG/NB issues, and of simple sensitivity to TG/NB perceptions of things that are not "targeted" at them but could be hurtful anyway. Since then, I feel I have become a voice of reason in the recurrent over-heated debates about how WP should write about TG/NB subjects. E.g. after this RfC trainwreck led to even more renewed dispute than it was trying to solve, I have outlined in great detail every identifiable out-standing question in that debate, so we can draft a new and much clearer RfC, to broadly "advertise" (VPPOL, CENT) to get a clearer consensus and guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   Update: Because this comes up pretty frequently (often with mistaken ideas about the intent of the piece, the results of the community debate about it, my actual positions on TG/NB questions, etc.), I've put up a page about it at User:SMcCandlish/TG-NB. It'll be more practical to just link to sections of that than re-write the same kinds of answer again and again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Newslinger

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

   @Newslinger: Under the same circumstances any dispute is deemed a conduct one: when the central problem is behavioral (personal attacks, ignoring 1RR and other article restrictions, violating a topic ban, etc.) The issue for ArbCom in particular isn't really the circumstances of the dispute, but the clean handling of the case, especially when a dispute involves both content and conduct. ArbCom cannot make content-dispute determinations (and it's already good at avoiding doing so). With more nuance though: ArbCom should not be in the position of even being mistakenly perceived by the community as settling or improperly biasing a content dispute. This necessarily means that everything, from accept/reject rationales, even side commentary in those rationales, to what evidence is accepted and what kinds of party input will be accepted without triggering "nope, that's content" dismissals, down to the findings of fact and remedies, and even later appeals and clarifications and DS actions. It will sometimes happen that a sanction against a disruptor may incidentally enable a good-behaving opponent in a content dispute to temporarily have more influence over the content outcome, but the community understands this, and that it will be the "job" of other editors to ensure P&G compliance in that content. This works fine when ArbCom cleanly separates behavioral from content matters (and INVOLVED Arbs recuse, etc.) Side point: I have pretty strong faith that Arbs will recuse when needed, at least if asked to. The three times I have asked an Arb to do so, it was done (though in two cases it took a little convincing, and that convincing was entirely about community trust in ArbCom).

   [More speculative answers to possible interpretations of this question have been refactored to the talk page.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC); refactored: 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

   Thank you, SMcCandlish, for your detailed response. — Newslinger talk 10:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Calidum

1. 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?

@Calidum: This'll be long, since it's a four-part close that poorly summarizes very complex material with a whole lot of implications. One really has to pore over the entire subthread (and cross-references to it) in the larger RfC. For one thing, I have to agree with RfC respondents that there are multiple distinct sorts of "unblockable" (more accurately "unbannable" and, a related but distinct matter, "un-desysoppable") preferential treatment, which have to be resolved differently (at least in part), because the causes and results of the problem differ for each class of case.
Analysis of the four RfC Q7 closure points:

1.  The closer's first conclusion, "Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced", is ostensibly reasonable but vague. The overall problem is that the community fails to act [enough] to resolve disruptive behavior by various long-term and usually-productive but habitually sometimes-disruptive editors who have a lot of wikifriends. The idea is that if ArbCom (rather than just ANI and other community noticeboards) impose a warning that this will/should be taken more seriously than noticeboard-issued warnings (or "driveby" admin-issued ones). But, the discussion itself shows skepticism of this, e.g. claims that warnings and even restrictions placed on "unblockables" by ArbCom still get ignored by noticeboards, AE, and ArbCom itself. So "should ... actually be enforced" is a bit of a belling-the-cat problem, and fairly complex. I have some draft ideas for solutions. But how to tackle this problem in earnest will require more detailed community and internal-to-ArbCom discussion. 2.  The next Q7 result was that short-term blocks should be more common. I'm a bit torn on this, leaning instead toward topic-bans when feasible. ArbCom and other venues do need to be more willing to impose sanctions not just "yet another admonition". But this exact proposal has cure-worse-than-disease potential: If we hand out short-term blocks left and right, lots of editors (including admins) are going to rack up lengthy "trivial block" logs, and non-indef blocks will lose much community meaning and individual deterrence potential. I've long said that we have strong evidence that topic- and interaction-banning is actually more effective when it comes to usually-productive but sometimes-problematic editors. Those who are just temperamentally incapable of keeping their cool will not be "cured" by short-term blocks, nor will those who are just NOTHERE. On the other hand, long-term blocks with expiration dates tend to drive away instead of reform usually-productive editors, yet don't really do much to deal with NOTHERE people except temporarily. We're often using the wrong tool for the job, in both directions. AE in particular has been too eager to hand out year+ blocks for topical disagreeableness, yet all our DR approaches tend to shy too much away from indefinite-to-effectively-permanent solutions to those habitually very disruptive parties who are "sometimes constructive". I'll just state this as a fact: If someone needs a "long-term" block, they actually need a siteban or indef. Year+ deadline blocks are basically an obsolete, failed experiment. But over-use of short-term blocks as a cure-all would just become a probably worse one, even if they should still be imposed on "unblockables" in the same circumstances under which any random editor would receive one. Side point: I'm personally aware (from direct involvement) of a case where use of repetitive short-term blocks instead of just T- and I-bans cost us a long-term and (outside one topic) productive editor, by triggering a personality issue (about "getting personal justice"). It palapably radicalized the user into becoming someone who can now probably never be unblocked. I argued again and again for only using both types of "cordon the user off from their trouble spots" limited bans instead of blocking, despite being the primary aggrieved party, but neither AE nor ArbCom listened. 3.  Next RfC-close point: "Users with multiple (but un-sanctioned) cases at ANI, and/or those with lengthy block logs, should be looked at by ArbCom" is kind of gibberish unless you read the thread in detail. What it means is that ArbCom should have a lowered threshold for accepting cases about the conduct of a party who has already been the subject of multiple [relevant and recent enough] community noticeboard examinations, yet escaped effective or any sanction. I strongly agree with this. It would a) help ArbCom do what the foundation and the community decided we needed an ArbCom for; b) likely reduce the number of disruptors allowed to continue disrupting, in general; and c) directly address a lot of the "unblockables" problem; yet also d) incidentally but importantly identify cases where an editor is being inappropriately hounded by a faction (ArbCom examines behavior of all the case parties, and acceptance of a case is hardly a prejudice against the accused). However, this would come at the cost of increasing ArbCom's workload, and probably the generating of more melodramatic venting (along the lines of that which spewed forth about the spate of desysoppings early this year). Next: a "lengthy block log" needs to be for case-relevant issues to be a trigger for lowered barrier to case acceptance. Someone may have racked up a pile of NPA blocks their first year while, say, abusing a band article's talk page as a debate-for-sport forum, yet this may have no relationship at all to the case at hand, e.g. a decade-later and civility-unrelated string of editwarring at history navboxes, motivated by a religio-political stance. ArbCom is not in the business of holding every old transgression against someone every time they're criticized for something else. 4.  The final point of the close: "More admin cases should be brought before ArbCom", another vagueness. It really means mostly that ArbCom should be more willing to accept ADMINCOND / ADMINACCT cases, not that an increased number of cases need to be generated. It's about difficulty of addressing "badmin" behavior, not an increase in the relative or absolute numbers of admins allegedly violating policy. Formulated more clearly this way, I strongly agree with this proposal, especially given than ArbCom is the only way to effectuate a desysop, and admins are held to higher behavioral standards as a matter of policy. Again, because acceptance of a case doesn't mean the accused is guilty, and malicious bogus accusations will boomerang, the main costs of doing this will be simply workload and rants. It also doesn't require that ArbCom impose more desysopping results in the cases it accepts (though the most recent ArbCom seems to have independently decided it should, post-FRAMBAN, with some community blowback as a result); only that barriers to case acceptance have been too high. I agree with something closely related, from a recent ARCA: an admin subject [legitimately] to multiple ongoing restrictions, or even a single major one, is by definition unsuitable to retain the admin bit, having demonstrated that community trust was misplaced and has been lost. "But they do/did such great work on foo" is irrelevant to that question, which is about permissions for access to dangerous tools not whether they should be banned/indeffed as editors. Update: I've discovered that at least one sitting Arb appears to agree with the gist of this point, saying (on a talk page) that if we stop treating admins as a special class, "that will lead to people voting and asking questions [at RfA] at a less agressive level. To do that, we need to be making it easier to desysop, and, to be honest, we need to be invoking other sanctions against admins. How often does an admin get blocked? How much hoo-hah is there over it when it happens? These are all part of the same issue."
Despite (if not because of) the length and breadth of that eight-part "mega-RfC", the number of respondents is actually quite low for the importance level of all the matters raised, and the discussions are mostly dominated (not always toward consensus-building, versus grandstanding) by a much smaller subset of that already limited group. Each of its questions and the results-so-far regarding them should be separately re-RfCed, with a lot of "advertising" (CENT, etc.) to solicit clarifying and more diverse input before ArbCom or the community considers them fully decided matters. While some of the above analyses (and the proposed solutions on the talk page) are just my opinion, I think it's clear that the close does not entirely accurately assess the consensus of RfC Q7 (at least) nor express it very usefully.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

I "pre-answered" this expected question here. So, feel free to ask another question. I don't think this one should count. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 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) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   @A7V2: I socio-politically align with the sentiment expressed in WMF statement of organizational position. (Cf. my essay WP:Race and ethnicity.) While one can make navel-gazing arguments about whether the quoted line above is strictly true, the intent of the piece (and the contextual meaning of that statement within it) are clear. It's better summed up in another quote from the same release: "Our work cannot be separated from the work of equality and freedom." (Emphasis in original, and best read in the context of the entire short paragraph.) The statement even has a section called "Our content", and it only calls for more inclusive coverage and (especially) for efforts to address under-representation in the pool of creators and users of that content.

   However, none of this has anything to do with NPOV (or NOR or other core policy matters) on en.wikipedia, or similar provisions at other WMF projects. The foundation making it clear where it organizationally stands on something that in a broad terms relates to its overall mission is completely unconnected with whether editors at this project can push a socio-political viewpoint in their mainspace editing that does not agree with the substantial majority of reliable sources (the "real-world consensus"). They're just unconnected matters. And nothing in that WMF statement suggests skewing WP content non-neutrally toward official WMF socio-political positioning.

   If anyone has difficulty with this, I find it's often clarifying to swap out the contentious matter for something directly analogous. Try this one: The fact that this entire project and the foundation behind it are all about open content development has no implications for our application of policy to our encyclopedia content about the topic of open content development: it must still be written from a neutral point of view and sourced in as neutral a way as we (humans not robots) can muster. And we're doing a pretty good job of it. Another: Wikipedia dutifully has encyclopedia articles that catalogue, without pulling any punches, the reliably sourced real-world criticisms directed at WMF and Wikipedia itself.

   PS: As a technical matter, the neutral point of view of our content is not just a policy but one of the foundational principles of the project, so it literally is not possible for any subject here to be exempt from it. The NPoV policy page is simply where we've written out in policy-ese how to apply, as content editors, this central tenet of the project. This centrality of it does have some potential conduct implications in connection to current socio-political topics, WP's majority left-of-center and American-dominated userbase and biases, etc. But there isn't anything for ArbCom's attention unless an actual conduct case arises, like a sociologically well-meaning editor who nevertheless attacks everyone who tries to keep a politico-cultural article neutrally worded and the community noticeboards fail to constrain the disruption.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:50, 19 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) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   I'll need to tease this apart a bit. I don't need to "believe" or not in a "perception" of left-of-center bias on Wikipedia, both in the editorial pool and in the content. :-) Innumerable reliable sources that have spent a lot of time analyzing Wikipedia have established that this is the case, our own articles on WP itself include this information, Signpost has covered the matter (relying on such sources) pretty frequently, and I don't think anyone here seriously (or at least reasonably) doubts this. I'm not sure it could be any other way, numerically, because WMF, en.wiki, and most other large WMF projects are based in liberal (in the broader sense) democracies (in the loose sense), and the populations of these places are majority left-of-center, though not extremely so.

   However, Trumpian editors being censured more frequently than those objecting to some of what some of them are doing isn't necessarily "one of the examples" of left-wing bias on Wikipedia. It's simply a fact, albeit a complex one with multiple causes. Just a few of them are: more aggressive (on average) behavior towards other editors; the fact-checking abandonment and consequent unreliability of many right-wing publishers; infiltration of traditional conservative political views by patently FRINGE conspiracy theories and proven-false propaganda (i.e. Trumpism); and deeper and more shameless PoV-pushing, original research of many kinds (especially SYNTH), and BLP violations; among many others. It is probable that the overall left-leaning bias in the editorial base is playing a factor in the sanctioning rate, of course. There may even be isolated cases of right-leaning editors being unfairly blocked or otherwise sanctioned ideologically despite not violating policies. But ArbCom isn't in a position to examine such a claim unless and until an editor evidences it in a RFARB or ARCA request. Same goes for concerns about far-left activism on Wikipedia. While this does crop up here and there, it mostly seems to get resolved by community noticeboards, we don't have evidence of left-extremism dominating our content, and if someone is certain otherwise and that there's a behavioral issue behind it, they can open a case request. Similarly, there are isolated cases of far-right extremists getting temporary content dominance in some articles and otherwise being disruptive, but this gets shut down.

   The broader systemic bias problems (from leftward viewpoints dominating among editors and current-events material, to the essential opposite, our more historical content still being skewed strongly toward a patriarchal and Euro-American viewpoint of what even counts as historical and encyclopedic) are primarily a community matter not an ArbCom one, as they largely resolve to content disputes. Nor is it ArbCom's role to address public or internal perceptions (accurate or exaggerated) of viewpoint-bias among our editors or in our content. For its part, ArbCom can (aside from being more conscientious about both personal biases of individual Arbs and any erosion of community faith in its institutional viewpoint neutrality) certainly become more alert and more, well, courageous when it comes to behaviorally problematic editors clearly motivated by left-wing socio-political activism (WP is already hyper-alert to such antics from the right-wing). Doing so will not make everyone happy and will result is histrionic fingerpointing from a certain camp, but it is necessary (or will become necessary if things get out of hand in one case or another). Disruptors must not get a pass simply because their worldview aligns with that of a majority of Arbs or editors or readers (versus reliable sources). That kind of occasional "'unblockable' because they politically mean well for justice" problem is also mostly a community one, though (it happens mostly at ANI and other community noticeboards).

   It does matter that conservatives who follow the P&G rules have exactly the same editing privileges here as progressives who do likewise. But we don't appear to have a crisis on our hands. Even if we did, the community has to address that; ArbCom's role is just examining highly specific cases about behavior problems (not views) of particular editors, and resolving them to the community's/project's benefit. May also be worth noting in this context that "conservative", "right-wing", etc., have multiple meanings depending on which political axis/axes (social, fiscal, etc.) are being considered.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
   Followup notes @A7V2: The "PS" at the end of this addendum to Calidum's question is also pertinent to what you asked in this one. And the first section of my DS review essay also addresses some of this in a general (behavior) way, not specific to politics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 21 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?

   @AmandaNP: Just so no one gets confused by "as an Arbitrator" in your question: I am not presently an Arb; I'm running for election not re-election. My answers above to A7V2 address the overall background of this question in a lot of detail. To get to your new specifics: You're correct that behavioral problems relating to a lot of these topics have already been "litigated" at RFARB, often with a topical DS result, which is then later used (to the extent that DS even functions very well) to suppress further disruption at such articles (often by parties who were not in the original case). Nevertheless we have a growing number of "WP:ARBsomething2" cases, because different kinds of behavior problems can flare up at the same topic, the original case may not have done enough to address even the original type of disruption, the scope may not have been broad enough (though ArbCom prefers to address that by amendment request at ARCA to avoid creating redundant cases), and so on. A new "hot-button" topic can arise at any time, so there will always be new cases that need examination for reasons that are similar to old cases.

   I think all community-involved editors, whether in an special role (Arb, admin, etc.) or not, have a part to play in addressing systemic bias in our content and editorial interactions. Arbs, admins, and others taking on decision-making or intervention roles – including unofficial ones like new-page patrolling, RfC closures, shepherding particular pages, GA and FA assessment, informal mediation and mentorship (even TEAHOUSE) – should be even more aware of and sensitive to such matters than average and on the lookout for ways to help address them, even if they're small ways. All that said, I do not believe it is a special mission of ArbCom in particular to be socio-political justice wikipolice; that would wade directly into content-dispute adjudication. But we don't need that anyway: ArbCom is already ready and willing to act decisively when there's clear evidence of abuse of Wikipedia to advance grotesque agendas like neo-Nazism, pedophilia, etc. There will almost certainly be obvious behavioral problems not "pure content dispute" matters in such cases, so it is not even difficult to get them in front of ArbCom for case acceptance.

   I'm not sure this perfectly addresses your question (I've written broadly in hopes of covering it), in part because I'm not certain my interpretation of your phrase "systemic oppression", and of "prevention" in that context, are exactly as you're conceiving them. Feel free to ask a follow-up question if I didn't get at what you're getting at (though I think followups this year are expected to be posted on the talk page).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 19 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)

   On-wiki, I spend a lot of time on policy interpretation (in RfCs, RM, and other proceedings, and in answering questions on policy and guideline talk pages), as well as on direct policy shepherding (primarily against CREEP and willy-nilly changes, because writing policy is hard and we have so much of it that it is difficult to substantively change part of it without unintended consequences and even POLICYFORK contradictions). I'm probably orders of magnitude more involved in these things than the average editor is. As for new functionaries: I participate in most RfAs/RfBs that are running when I'm logged in, usually with some actual research into a candidate's wiki-background, whether opposition claims are well founded, etc. I also helped PERM/PM, when it was new, establish that admins answering requests there are to perform some due diligence in assessing the candidates and not treat page-mover permission as a low-risk one to just rubber-stamp. I've been a template-editor for ages; this is another of the "high geekery" advanced permissions with a major risk of breaking things if not used properly.

   For a general overview of my "independent thought" on WP-internal matters (including policy understanding, community-norms absorption, analytical ability, and general common sense), you're probably best off skimming User:SMcCandlish/Essays, which indexes most of the ones I've had a lot of input into; some of the more major successful policy and community proposals listed at User:SMcCandlish/Proposals might also help in assessing me. For an example of my ability to wade through, contextually assess, and make understandable an almost painfully copious amount of evidence, see here.

   Professionally, I have a long (and rather public) privacy-related track record, having worked for 15+ years as an online-civil-liberties advocate and policy analyst first for Electronic Frontier Foundation and later CryptoRights Foundation (which also entailed a lot of work on security software and hardware). Not just internal work, it involved a lot of "translation" of technical and legal material into content that could be understood by journalists, other NGOs, and the general public. I'm also the co-author of a Harper-Collins book on online privacy. [It's obsolete, so don't buy a copy!] Much of my commercial-sector work has been NDA-laden, high-security systems & network administration (e.g. for a PCIe board manufacturer, a multi-jurisdictional law firm, an investment banking company, and a venture capital firm). So, I take privacy, confidentiality, security (and communicating an understanding of them) way more seriously than average. And I generally know what I'm talking about with regard to them. :-) A very-summary bio is here.

   You raised admin short-staffing of various internal functions. (While OS/CU are not tied by policy to adminship, in practice nearly all holders of those bits are also admins.) This shortage isn't really an ArbCom issue (absent evidence previous ArbComs have been refusing without good reason to grant these permissions to high-trust and high-competence admins). Rather, it's a symptom of "the RfA problem" that the community has been struggling with for years (not without some improvement success). In relation to other questions here, I'll hypothesize that ArbCom being more willing to desysop for obvious ADMINCOND / ADMINACCT failures might have a short-term minor negative impact on admin numbers, but in the long run it could help reverse the slide of WP's historical stance that "adminship is no big deal" into the recent-ish state better described as "adminship is treated like a life-or-death struggle". If more admin screwups result in removal of the bit (in something more like an algorithmic manner rather than a borderline-punitive DRAMA festival), yet if more ex-admins were able to regain the bit pretty perfunctorily because they're not branded like a "terrible person" but are treated just as someone who made some mistakes they've learned from, then this should have a calming effect on RfA in general and make more people willing to go through that scrutiny in the first place (and make the scrutiny less like torture). RfA is still sometimes a hellhole largely because of the "an adminship is effectively for life unless the admin flips out bad enough to make it into newspapers" problem of it historically being extremely difficult to ever get anyone desysopped for cause. That started to change, a little, only this very year. Also this year, we've seen a high ratio of RfAs succeed, and more than one of them near-unanimously, which was almost unheard of before. I see these as good signs, even if the candidacy rate is still too low.

   PS: I share concerns about things like "blocks where the behavior doesn't match but technical evidence does", and other problems that keep coming up in relation to WMF's failure to catch up with real-world tech facts, like people depending on VPNs for multiple reasons (and their use actually increasing account-credential security); ISPs and institutions increasingly "cloud-izing" in ways that both frequently juggle IP addresses around for load balancing, and conversely provide multiple unrelated services (sometimes by unrelated entities) from the same IP address because the servers are virtualized; and so on. I've opened dialogue with a WMF dev about trying to address some of this sooner rather than later, in particular because the forthcoming imposition of "IP address masking" is already going to necessitate rejiggering all sorts of back-end tech used for vandal- and sock-fighting and so on. The time is now; it's a two-birds-one-stone situation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from ProcrastinatingReader

2. You've previously authored an essay on issues with discretionary sanctions, and I presume you still believe the system has flaws. What primary issues do you believe the system has, and, if elected, specifically how would you go about resolving them?

   @ProcrastinatingReader: With only minor revision, the rather explanatory headings and pseudo-headings in the essay spell out what the issues are: The crux is that assumptions of DS's effectiveness, "to resolve disruption and promote civil participation", are demonstrably false. Arbcom's 2013 "review" of DS was more of a rubber-stamp copyedit than a substantive overhaul, and the promised 2015/2016 followup simply never happened. Subsequent polishing of the documentation is just "lipstick on a pig" and doesn't fix the bugs. The scope of DS is vague, overbroad, and counterproductive. DS is too often used hypocritically, to punitively thwart dispute resolution. Two types of this are A) administrative casting of aspersions that are unprovable by their very nature; and, B) accusations of disruptive acts that are not demonstrated by the evidence, just assumed by the DS-applying admin. High alert cannot last forever, and DS generally should not permanently cloud entire categories. {{Ds/alert}} is still near-universally perceived as a hostile threat, not "notice" or "awareness", and all efforts to address this have failed. This "awareness" system is full of double-think and loopholes, mutating over time. An "I am the law!" attitude among too many admins who're AE regulars employing DS has been tolerated for too long, leading to abuse of DS as a SUPERVOTE weapon. The appeals process is confused, is a type of false process, and is a failure of ArbCom's mission: 1) Admins can't do the right thing to ease sanctions without new bureaucratic drama; 2) DS's present operation actually exceeds ArbCom's authority; 3) the community is clearly dissatisfied with the appeals process, for real reasons; and, 4) appeal "only by the editor under sanction" is a fake rule that is not actually enforced at ARCA (and should not be), but scares away most attempts to help bad decisions get rectified. Today's DS is a self-undermining "judicial activism" process that guarantees unjust results. DS applied to policy formation is out-of-scope, and harms WP self-governance; it's a separation-of-powers problem between WP's equivalent of its judicial and legislative branches. DS is procedurally unclear, even as to what rules are authoritative. And, finally, DS is one of the primary causes of "adminship is no big deal" not being true anymore, RfA being a nightmare, and thus decline in number of admins; this has had serious, cascading consequences.

   As one sitting Arb recently put it, in an actual case: "[Another Arb] proposes that all sanctions be enforced with common sense; I agree with [that Arb], but the DS regime makes common sense inapplicable." This is not the only such DS-sketicism I've seen ArbCom (finally!) coming to express.

   What I would help do about it: The fact that other Arbs and candidates (most of whom are likely to be on the next ArbCom) have raised one or more of the same concerns I have about DS as we currently know it, is one of the main reasons (along with there perhaps being too few candidates at all this year) that I decided to run this year rather than next. There is a great and overdue opportunity to form a caucus to overhaul (or even replace) DS. And there's more than precedent for doing so: DS itself was just invented out of nowhere by a single Arb, and implemented experimentally. Then it was just left running despite overwhelming evidence of failure of the experiment. The 2013 DS review, which was at least a start but ultimately ineffective, was essentially the "baby" of a single Arb as well. But if a significant number of Arbs next year want to take this on, then real change will finally happen. I think much of what I would like to see resolved is already clearly implicit in the problems I identified above. As I've said in response to some other questions here, and on the talk page (where I outlined a series of potential steps to address various problems, broader than just DS), one useful and probable approach will be merging DS into community GS, and in the process stripping out all of the counterproductive, confusing bureaucracy. But much more specific revisions will be needed to address some of the problems I wrote about, especially outright abuse of DS to violate the very principles it's supposed to be supporting and enforcing, along with the overreach beyond ArbCom's actual raison d'etre and authority.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

   Great answer, thanks and gl! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:18, 21 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?

   My responses above to both A7V2 and AmandaNP speak to the overall background of this. On the "stealth BLP violation" problem: ArbCom just takes (appropriate, conduct-addressing) cases that are brought before it. In this regard and many others, it is like a court. It can't roam the wiki-land like a police force looking for wrongs to right; that's the community's job. But one thing I didn't really delve into above is that ArbCom actually can have a strong effect on suppressing disruption and other problems that "infest" content and disputes about it. Its statements of principles (grounded in policies, WP's fundamental paradigms, community consensuses, and WMF-specified requirements like legal decisions and terms-of-use limitations) not only inform future cases as a form of precedent that doesn't change much, but are sometimes extrapolated into {{information page}} documents that can be interpreted by the admin corps as actionable and essentially equivalent to WP:P&G pages; the most obvious example is WP:ASPERSIONS. While ArbCom cannot create new policy by fiat, the community is certainly free to interpret its consistent decision-making, grounded in existing policy, as guiding. Second, the remedies ArbCom issues can often be discretionally applied by admins (at AE and otherwise) with considerable leeway, including incidents of content disputes with conduct problems where the conduct issues are less central than would be necessary for acceptance as a new RFARB case (though they still cannot act as "content adjudicators" of course). While I think there will be reform and possibly even closure of AC/DS as we know it, I do not believe the discretionary nature of some remedies will just go away. I think it's more likely that this system will be merged with community GS and simply made less redundant and less bureaucratic. (That is my hope, anyway; more about this has now been written above in response to another question.)

   On the alleged problem of various new "admin PoV cabals": This is much more plausible than the old fantasy of a monolithic admin cabal, though less demonstrable (so far) than obvious and more innocent bias among admins simply for being humans from particular backgrounds. For a while, I was writing an internal mini-blog on systemic threats to Wikipedia, and chief among them is organized off-site factions attempting to skew Wikipedia content and undermine open community control of the project, including by "planting" their members as admins (with be-on-best-behavior-for-18-months infiltration tactics to get the bit, then using it to protect their PoV allies and suppress the voices of opponents). The severe US-political and other social effects of Russian and other state-sponsored, organized "propaganda farming" of major social media sites over the last few years, and the difficulty of stopping it, is proof that this risk is real, not hypothetical. As WP has become one of the most go-to sites in the world for billions of people, the urge various entities and diffuse movements feel to try to "spin" what it says is very, very strong. While ArbCom can't just wade in and fix it all with a magic wiki-wand, and has to be very careful not to cross a line into adjudicating content disputes, I think it will play a key role in both shutting down organized "civil PoV-pushing" campaigns (on behavioral/policy-compliance grounds, not for what viewpoint they have) and even eventually desyopping CoI "plants". I'm very glad that the latter of these problems seems more potential than actual at this moment (though in a worst-case scenario that could mean that it is both actual and really good at flying under the radar ...).

   It's helpful, in a sense, that a frequent target of this kind of PoV manipulation is BLPs, because we have a top-down mandate from WMF (OFFICE action that the community, including NOTHERE blobs within it, cannot undo or weaken) to not permit defamatory garbage in such articles, to make it a priority to prevent/undo that stuff. This gives ArbCom stronger footing to act, both in taking cases that allege such problems, and in treating them as behavior/conduct/policy/ToU matters not "pure content" disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 , 01:40, 21 November 2020

Optional question from Stifle

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

   @Stifle: As any other Arb, basically – with the same commitment to even-handedness and due diligence in evidence assessment and in separating conduct issues from content questions. In the event that functionary permissions like CU or OS might be needed for specific evidence assessment in a particular case, they are available to all Arbs for that purpose (nor do these tools require adminship in the first place, though few holders them aren't admins). In the event that some evidence assessment literally required the sysop bit to get at it on-wiki, and could not be done with CU or OS, it is evidence that could and would be shared between Arbs via the arbcom-en mailing list. It is not really a plausible scenario that ArbCom would take action on evidence while willfully blockading a particular Arb from seeing it. :-)  [Update: On re-examining the details of these permissions levels, I'm unaware of any relevant ability that the sysop (admin) bit has that CU/OS do not. I would not need sysop to be able to see deleted revisions.]

   I liken this non-issue to the similar one that most or all Arbs at en.Wikipedia may have to ask admins or other functionaries at other WMF projects for evidence that our Arbs don't have direct permissions to reach (e.g. in a case of personal-attack harassment that began here and then extended to pt.Wikipedia or Commons but was later removed from public view on those sibling sites). In short, I wonder how does anyone feel a fully competent candidate would not be able to discharge the role of Arbitrator effectively without adminship. I'm not certain I would be the only non-admin Arb that WP has had. [Update: digging into it, it appears that WTT was elected while not an admin at that moment, but had already passed RfA. And that is all. So we have yet to have a true non-admin Arb.] There have definitely been many non-Arb applicants (legit ones, not joke nominations), and I came close to election in 2017. As with WP:Bureaucrats, if the "job" technically could not (or by community rede or WMF decree should not) be done without being an admin, then adminship would simply be required as a precondition of candidacy.

   [More speculative answers to possible interpretations of this question have been refactored to the talk page.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC); refactored, note added: 21:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Optional question from Dreamy Jazz

2. This question is kind of like a follow up from Stifle's question and your response. 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). 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)?

   @Dreamy Jazz: Hmm ... I hadn't thought about that, but I suppose it might be reasonable, iff the need for that specific sort of access became so acute that it was a drag on arbcom-en productivity for other Arbs to post this material to the list. But I would think they do this all the time anyway, in the course of analyzing the material. It's kind of hard to picture it working very well otherwise, since their internal deliberations have to be very clear about exactly what bits of evidence they're using to arrive at a finding a fact, and so on. I gather that the archive of this list is quite thick and is that way intentionally, so that evidence and reasoning about it is never lost, and is available about old cases to new Arbs who may have to review it, especially for ARCA purposes.  [Update: On re-examining the details of these permissions levels, I'm unaware of any relevant ability that the sysop (admin) bit has that CU/OS do not. I would not need sysop to be able to see deleted revisions.]

   I'm hard pressed to think of why I would ever want to be an admin for any other reason, unless my editing-focus intents shifted dramatically. Even then, I think it would only be for doing technical work that has become undoable without the admin bit. E.g., I used to work on interface ("MediaWiki:" namespace) pages a little, and was considering doing it again, but then WMF created the interface-admin bit and (against the advice of me and many other people, who wanted it to be interface-editor, analogous to template-editor) made it require the sysop bit as a prerequisite. When my imagination runs wild, I can also picture a long-term wave of coordinated vandalism (e.g. large parties of foreign-state-sponsored hackers/trolls such as have been employed to turn Facebook and Twitter into propaganda farms) that was so bad that it required all competent hands on deck to prevent it wrecking the entire project. But aside from that, I have little personal interest in usual admin activities. (I did run for RfA a very long time ago, when I was too new to either be a good candidate or to notice what it usually does to mainspace productivity. I briefly considered it again a few years back, after a bunch of back-to-back "peer pressure" to pick up the mop, but decided against it.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC); note added: 21:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

   PS: This seems as a good a place as any to mention that I previously ran for ArbCom, in 2017, and missed election by under 3%, and had more support votes than half of those who were elected. (Details here.) If I won't be the first non-admin Arb, someone will be eventually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC); clarified: 17:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:56, 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?

   @Atsme: This question appears to be trying to get at a specific case or cases, and to be pre-characterizing various actions in subjective ways that others are apt to have a different take on. So I don't think I can really address it in a fine-toothed way without knowing the specifics. There's a high risk of providing a firm answer based on one set of assumptions, only to have that read in an an "Ah ha!" way to apply to a kind of case I wasn't thinking about at all. As with another Q&A above, I have to remind people that I'm not a mind-reader. Your "more authority than ArbCom itself" wording, however, does suggest seeing ProcrastinatingReader's question above, and the DS-review essay my answer summarizes; that does involve limits to ArbCom's scope and DS sometimes causing that to be exceeded.

   Taking your question in a very broad way: I do know that the recent harassment-policy RfC (the really huge one, which Calidum asked me about, above) did touch in one section on some actions that might be seen as "ambush-style". There was also someone several years ago desysopped (or resigning under the cloud; I forget) for "setting up" people, by imposing a restriction and then intentionally steering and baiting them into violating it. Just yesterday, I was pointed to a case in which someone was issued a topic-ban but not properly notified of it, then sanctioned for violating it (with that sanction later vacated as out-of-process). So, weird stuff can happen, and the community, or less often ArbCom, may need to actively address it. Its been my experience that it does tend to get addressed. When it doesn't, I think much of it has to do with unawareness by an affected party of how to even ask that it be addressed. WP policy wonks sometimes forget how opaque our dispute resolution procedures can be to newcomers, how many of them there are, how scope-limited some of them are, what conditions must already exist to activate some of them, etc. I think much of this whole overall sphere of issues has to do with unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy. Some of it's really getting to "WTF?" level. I've seen remedies applied to people in which separate restrictions in the remedy had different time spans and different appeal venues, even a single restriction in it would switch from one type/venue to another after a certain date ("the first 6 months of this line-item is under DS, and thereafter will be a community sanction", etc.). And in that case, the restricted party claimed to be so confused they couldn't really understand it, which later played a part in their indef block – though it was mostly for NOTGETTINGIT about why they were being sanctioned at all, and their refusal to drop the "give me justice or else" stick. It also lead to a tedious, years-long string of "micro-appeals" at multiple venues (user talk page, AN, AE, ARCA, etc.), as the differing and sometimes midstream-changing restrictions in the confusing remedy-pile kept presenting renewed opportunities to relitigate.

   Part of my election campaign platform, if you will, is working toward reduction of such bureaucracy (in regards to DS or otherwise). I want to see DS overhauled, or retired in favor of a better-thought-out replacement, or merged with community GS and shedding a lot of convolution in the process; there are multiple potential ways to approach it. Another thing I would like to do (if elected or not) is create or help create an "appeal flowchart" of sorts, that lays out (for admin as well as appellant benefit) how/where/when/why to appeal various different restrictions. There may also need to be some kind of simplification rule installed (e.g., if you are subject to a community-imposed T-ban for 6 months, then a month later subject to an ArbCom/AE imposed 1-year block for related disruption, this will mean your entire sanctions in that topic area have transferred to ArbCom/AE, your T-ban does not expire during that block because it is now no longer a separate action but part of the ArbCom-controlled sanctions, and any later sanctions in this topic area will be considered ArbCom territory and only appealable there, even if imposed at AN, ANI, ANEW, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:03, 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)?

   This is another question where I can't get into specifics, because this seems to be about a certain case or cases (in which you likely have a directly involved interest), and I lack the necessary details. Nor do I think I should engage in "moot court" adjudication thought-experiments about those specific parties if I did know the details.

   As a very general matter, I would say there is likely some heightened INVOLVED risk if an admin is "patrolling" a particular topic area. For this reason, admins who spend a lot of time dealing with disruption in, say, the DS scope of Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict do not significantly work on content relating to topics inside that scope. In a particular case, it could come down to all sorts of questions: Is the shepherding being done in an administrative an even-handed, behavior-centered manner to stop/forestall repeated outbreaks of similar disruption, or is it editorial concern about the content's meaning and which sources are being used for it? If there's a combined content/conduct dispute going on, is an admin's concern about attempts to thwart V/NOR/RS consensus that has already been determined for that topic (e.g. via an RfC), or are they in effect defending a particular viewpoint or selection of sources without there yet being a consensus on the matter? Is prior significant interaction between an admin and a non-admin editor simply administrative or does it have the character of a content dispute between them?

   It's important to remember that previously having sanctioned an editor does not make an admin INVOLVED with regard to that editor. But this is not a magic wand that allows the admin to become involved in the content of the topic, then sanction an opposing-viewpoint editor in that topic and claim immunity because they'd previously sanctioned said non-admin before the admin was editing in the topic area. But "You previously sanctioned me and now you're involved in the topic, so you can't ever address my content or behavior in this topic" isn't a valid argument, either (though it's one I have seen someone try to make); even an INVOLVED admin can, instead of directly acting, open an ANI, AE, or RFARB request as an editor. We also have HARASS rules about not "stalking" particular editors out of AGF-failing conviction that they'll eventually get up to no good in a particular topic or in general. So, is an admin doing that, or are they actually analyzing everyone's non-minor contributions to a frequently disrupted topic more generally? It's possible an editor who doesn't follow our policies might feel they're being edit-stalked when what's really happening is that only their behavior at the page is triggering a response because that of others' isn't disruptive or against policy. I think we've all seen this many times and we all know how that ends up.

   See also my answer to IP user 2600:1004:*, above; it's in part relevant to topical "admin cabals" or "stealth admin" suspicions. On "modification of DS by a single administrator ...": I can't really comment on that without knowing the specifics, because even what is meant by it is open to a lot of interpretation. The most I'm willing to say at this point is that I'm generally not a fan of admins using DS to create highly novel remedies for specific editors. The community has a difficult time knowing how to interpret and apply them (lacking a "precedent" record of community analysis and decision-making) so they're counterproductive, whatever else might be said of a particular one and its alleged motivation or necessity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• If I didn't like what you were saying, I'd slap a quick tl;dr on it. Seriously, your thoroughness, critical thinking skills and superb communication skills are very much appreciated, as is your caution. Thank you! Atsme 💬 📧 17:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up discussion moved to discussion page per new rules this year. Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear

2. I'm going to ask a question because I see a bunch of individuals raising it, and a number complaining about it and some supporting it: do you believe you are excessively verbose, to what degree do you think your ArbCom participation will reflect that (e.g. would we expect more detailed cases where you are a drafter?), and would you want to say anything to those who disagree/agree with your level of loquciousness?
   (Apologies for the odd phrasing, but I hold both positive and negative views towards long answers, so have tried to give space for both. I at least have nothing against a long answer here, irony or no.)

   @Nosebagbear: I "pre-answered" some of this here. I don't see myself as "excessively" verbose, just verbose when there's much to cover, in venues appropriate for detailed discussion. I'm very analytic when it comes to policy matters (the bulk of my talk-namespaces editing, including at articles). Having worked as a legislative analyst, I know trivial-seeming changes to or novel interpretations of policy often don't think through the effects on other material and decisions that interact. "Good training for ArbCom."

   On this Q&A page, providing high-precision, in-depth answers (to questions which this year are unusually challenging and philosophical due to things like this mega-RfC) is important, and the responses so far seem to've appreciated this. This isn't an essay, it's individuals asking questions that matter a great deal to them, and expecting non-casual answers. (And, as a non-admin, I have a higher hurdle to prove I know what I'm talking about.) As a first-time Arb, I wouldn't expect to be tasked with primary drafting of a case right away. But I'm good at outlining, at producing bulletized content when that is the task. ArbCom has a list-style case layout for good reasons.

   Much of my mainspace gnoming work is removing redundancy and otherwise compressing text. I chew through lots of RfCs via FRS, and XfDs, and usually have pretty concise input at them (often "per Whoever, plus this WP:XYZ policy consideration"). If I get long in one, it's usually about previous decisions that this discussion has been missing (it's for the closer, really).

   I've joked that people who can't handle a few paragraphs are at the wrong site, since WP is a mostly-text project. But I'm of course aware that editorial time is precious. It's part of why I use a lot of paragraph breaks, try to be very sequential in presentation of points, avoid lengthily reiterating what others have said, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

4. 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?

   @Nosebagbear: I'm skeptical edge cases and nuanced scenarios are mutually exclusive. :-) "Adminship is no big deal" stopped being true because DS gave far more personal sanctioning power to admins than was ever contemplated when the admin role was created. Post-DS treatment of RfA is like vetting for sainthood, with ArbCom treating desysopping like decanonization. It's a vicious cycle, and can only be fixed incrementally (given community resistance to clean-slate overhauls).

   I agree with an Arb in a recent ARCA: An admin subject to multiple serious editing restrictions is, by definition, someone who has breached RfA community trust. My elaboration: ArbCom should formally adopt a "two simultaneous strikes" principle, as one (non-exclusive) means of determining whether to desysop. Being more "automatic" about this, and less subjective, less wiggle-room allowing, will start to cool the "RfA hellhole": Desysop people left and right, and the community will resysop them (if they learned from it) in new, low-drama RfAs. If regaining the bit gets easy, then gaining it at all gets easier, and our admin shortage starts to rectify. Especially if DS gets overhauled. [See addendum to Calidum for more on this.]

   A single restriction shouldn't, just by its existence, result in desysop. Nor should two that are essentially the same remedy in two parts applied at around same time for same issue. But there's no get-out-of-jail-free card; if the problem was bad enough for a single restriction it might well be enough for a desysop. A serious escalation of a single remedy, for continued disruption in the same area, should also be "game over". A restriction later vacated as invalid wouldn't count (might even result in auto-resysop). Two-way I-bans don't count.

   The interaction-ban problems must be fixed. Even recently, we have Arbs saying a two-way I-ban does not mean either party is problematic, only that they don't get along and should be separated. This is not actual community perception. (In one of the ACE2020 voter guides, you'll see an old two-way I-ban said to be proof a candidate is unsuitable!) We need an ArbCom-authored page, like WP:ASPERSIONS, instructing the community to usually not treat two-way bans as sanctions. (Otherwise, ArbCom should cease issuing them except as serious and lasting sanctions, not just personality-clash avoidance.) ArbCom should also be much less reluctant to impose a one-way I-ban when there's clearly a harassment pattern, and it should be interpreted as a sanction not just peace-keeping. Also adopt a principle that if the other party exploits a one-way I-ban to perpetuate a dispute one-sidedly, instead of dropping it, then it may convert to a two-way I-ban that is an actual sanction. (Technically, each editor gets a sanctioning one-way I-ban, since we don't want two-way ones to be seen as sanctions. Or we just invent some classifying labels.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up question 1 (to my q2)

1. With regard to Desysop people left and right, and the community will resysop them (if they learned from it) in new, low-drama RfAs - what indication do you have that the Community would do this? Even a desysop that was based on (according the Community) too little severity (that is, we concurred they'd misbehaved, but not the level of action) would generally be sufficient to convince a minority of the community against resysopping. It would also take a fairly substantial amount of time to demonstrate this was a theme. It seems like this would take some fairly egregious errors or a string of errors (in terms of community judgement) to resolve the problem, and as an admin, I'd rather not risk being used as a means to try and resolve rfa interpretations.

   @Nosebagbear: The main indication is number of outrage howls about the series of 3 desysops early this year (compared to average responses back when, about desysops that were usually undertaken only in "holy crap, that admin really³ screwed up" cases). I expect at least 1 of these eventual resysops to be pretty easy (dunno if in the works yet), another would be semi-easy (in a year+, if editor ended semi-retirement), and the third (already drafted) was looking like an outright shoo-in until an outburst at ARCA, though I'm pretty sure that one will also pass after ~6 months of being chill and actually abiding by that editors' published promise to be more collegial. As I said, I think this will necessarily be incremental. But I would bet good money that if ArbCom desysopped 6 admins next year for clear but not grotesque transgressions, that at least half would be resysopped within 6–12 months (and 1 or 2 sooner), with less drama than usual, and also that we'd see a moderate uptick in both new-admin candidates and less trial-by-fire in passing them (if actually qualified). The community's need for admins exceeds its desire to indefinitely punish one who messed up, much less to treat new candidates like vivisection subjects. "Adminship is the biggest deal of all time!" is not long-term tenable. Real reform of DS will also help. Even in years past, the 2 admins I most thought needed desysopping for WP:GAMING issues (1 was, 1 cloud-resigned), both got resysopped (I didn't oppose, on AGF principles) without much issue, within a couple of years. And there were some others. I think what would change is some would be resysopped within the year.

   Definitely, I don't mean that ArbCom should desysop (especially for trivial, short-term problems) to help tweak RfA. That would run afoul of the "remedies are preventative not punitive" principle and then some (more like "... not sacrificial"!). What I'm saying is ArbCom shouldn't be afraid to desysop for habits of gross civility violations, or repeatedly incompetent tool use, or tendentious behavior that involves the tools (to get at the three cases aforementioned), etc., even if it will tick off wikifriends of those admins and result in lots of hair-pulling and fainting. When the Board is telling us in no uncertain terms that we have a long-term problem in letting admins get away with ADMINCOND fails over and over again, then there's little choice but for desysoppings to be less rare. (Which, then again, might actually balance out a bit, in discouraging "badmin" antics in the first place, knowing the wiggle room has gotten smaller.) PS: ArbCom should, in the other direction, not treat certain historically "bright line" things as so bright. I've seen a few desysops in previous years that seemed really unnecessary, being for almost certainly just one-off mistakes, so the action wasn't actually preventative. PPS: I elaborated on some of this stuff earliler, in an answer to AmandaNP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC); noted added: 08:05, 28 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)

1. 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?

@StraussInTheHouse: The deets will be long, but the conclusion is not.
The "... and why" analyses:

I'm not in a position to opine on the merits of the BHG case, having been involved in it, though I'm comfortable doing a little analysis. It was mostly one of those "net positive/negative" examinations (though narrowly about behavior with the admin toolkit, not about the editor's overall activity, of course). Some of my extended response to Calidum's question about "unblockables" is pertinent, in a general way. It is interesting that the finding relating to BHG was unanimous, as was a prohibition, with an I-ban being 11–3, yet the desysop decision was a very split 9–6. This suggests that community concern about some admins being given special wiggle-room is a legitimate issue, especially since this case involved an admin having multiple restrictions/sanctions. In the RH case, the decision to accept, and most of the clauses in the result, including findings of fact and imposed remedies, verged on unanimous, and I'm disinclined to question it. That case boiled down to another net-positive/negative assessment, though the admin's "I just didn't know" posturing did not help. Admins are expected to know what they are/aren't permitted to do, and to learn from admin-sphere mistakes quickly. The elephant in the room: why were the Arb vote ratios in the BHG and RH cases so different? Especially given the types of ADMINCOND issues raised in the respective cases (the one often involving CIVIL/NPA matters, and the other mostly just technical). In the K case, the remedies included a community reminder that ArbCom is the last resort. This obviously indicates that the case should not have been accepted, and instead remanded back to ANI or other community venues, for addressing current issues being raised (rather than digging through old history and reigniting disputes that were long settled). The findings and remedies are much more split than in the RH case. I'd've recused, having worked with K closely enough on various things (not related to the case) that I'd probably be seen as a "wikifriend" and potentially INVOLVED. I think K was railroaded a bit, as a process matter, but that the conduct issues were arguably within the realm of a desysop. However, I have to wonder how much the proceedings were colored by some of the background disputation involving on of the Arbs (and some behavior that is questionably becoming of an Arb). While that Arb did recuse, this could've put pressure on ArbCom to treat the case differently.
In all of these, I think the desysop decision was defensible, even if one was not "ripe" for acceptance as a case, though differential treatment across the cases is "interesting". In the long run, the more willing ArbCom is to desysop for ADMINCOND failures, even when many editors won't agree with sanctions against their wikibuddies, then the less of a hellhole RfA eventually will be, with many community members eager to reinstate the bit as long as the once-and-future-admin indicates understanding of why they were sanctioned and what they'll do to avoid a repeat of problem behavior. Adminship becoming "no big deal" again is a chicken-and-egg problem, and will only improve very incrementally. Cases like these are one such increment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

2. 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?

ArbCom's letter was entirely reasonable, as was its broader overall response, acting as something of a mediator between WMF and the community (and in more ways than most people will notice). This is the key point of the letter: WMF's approach to FRAMBAN was "fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement's principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance." The "when should WMF act?" matter is a huge and moving-target question, given things like the UCC draft (which has just about the longest talk-page ever), and the harassment RfC (which is about way more than its name would suggest). I've already addressed some of this "mega-question" in answers to George Ho, Calidum (including the talk-page addendum), A7V2, and The Land, above.

To get to the core of your question, I don't think WMF should be acting on conduct issues unless: A) they fall within those OFFICE-type kinds you linked to; B) they fall under WMF Universal Code of Conduct and the project (e.g. en.WP) at which the conduct is happening lacks community-developed policies to already address that type of abuse; or C) it's a WMF T&S report about abuse that spans multiple projects and often outside-WMF harassment (like pestering another editor's family or employer).

Even so, I have my skepticism about all of those categories. E.g., we already block people making legal threats; it does not require OFFICE intervention. And the UCC obviously has a lot of issues in its current draft, while its entire raison d'etre is providing policy for projects that lack it (not interfering with projects already rich in policy). And we cannot examine the T&S processes and evidence, so we generally have no way of knowing if they are equitable. That last has much to do with why FRAMGATE was such a trainwreck. The very fact that ArbCom did get to examine much of that yet immediately un-banned Fram is strong evidence that the T&S evidence-review process (or its application in that case) could be faulty, especially given the level of direct involvement by Jimbo, the board of directors, and WMF executive staff in resolving the FRAMBAN mess. I think ArbCom continuing to have a role as something like a mediator between the community and WMF will be important and permanent, even if it is not the primary purpose of ArbCom, nor the main mode of WMF interacting with this editorial community. [Just to be clear, though, Newyorkbrad's observation that "even if [FRAMGATE] was mishandled, Trust and Safety actions are generally taken with good intentions" is surely correct. Where I'm coming from on this is summed up in a saying about the road to Hell. >;-]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:03, 26 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) 21:42, 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? While the UCC has some issues that need to be ironed out, I certainly support that part of UCC. The spirit of this question seems to be whether a pattern of ignoring people's (or a specific person's) preferred pronouns and other gender-related matters would be disruptive and sanctionable. The answer is yes, and WP already treats it this way. Technically, whether it would "be WP:HARASSMENT" depends on whether that's the policy-page in which the applied rule is found. We haven't seemed to need a specific one, and that page's own lead statement that "Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability is not allowed" seems to have been sufficient so far, along with the general civility policy. But I would not be opposed to addition of something more specific, if existing policy proves insufficient, and if the addition were well-thought-out. Which brings up the other matter: forgetting or not noticing someone's preference isn't and shouldn't be an actionable offense. Editors aren't mind readers, and don't have a mental database of every bit of detail about every other editor (some of whom have confusingly similar user IDs, plus some have changed their pronoun preferences during their editing tenure). Harassment and similar serious problems are matters of intent and frequency and intensity. That said, no editor of any group has to just "expect and not complain about" things that bother or offend them, on any subject (even if an ability to complain doesn't mean "noticeboard everyone who ever gets your preference wrong" :-). PS: I don't know of anyone disrespecting CaptainEek's gender neutrality. Doing so would be ill-advised; the community is solid on that, whether UCC exists or not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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^✉ 21:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   @Mrwoogi010: "Sometimes"? Heh. I'm in favor of applying "don't bite the newcomers" everywhere, not just in, say, being civil and explanatory in the edit summary of a revert. Since ArbCom is the venue of last resort, it's not frequently going to happen that a very new editor is going to be in an ArbCom case, and I think most Arbs would already be sensitive to "biting" issues. However, it seems to me that ANI and other community noticeboards are often too quick to bring down the ban-hammer rather than use short-term remedies, narrow topic-bans, and other approaches.

   As ArbCom handles unblock requests when user-talk access has been revoked, ArbCom's most likely consideration of new-editor behavior will be via that route. Since admins considering unblock requests are already empowered to unblock with conditions (i.e., with narrower restrictions but some nonetheless), ArbCom is also so empowered. I would like to see it use this approach more often when there is room for benefit of the doubt. (But we do not need any increased leeway for a sockpuppet, vandal, commercial promoter, vicious attacker in political topics, or other clearly NOTHERE abuser, even if the user seems new.) PS: I also touched on some elements of this question in my "too-bannables" comments in my extended response to Calidum.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from The Land

2. Last year your essay Pronouns beware was published on the Signpost. A number of editors, myself included, initially read it as mocking trans people. What have you learned from that incident? Relatedly, 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? Regards, The Land (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   The first question is one I answered in my reply to Darren-M, above (and for more detail, see User:SMcCandlish/TG-NB). The second is answered in my reply to Fæ, more immediately above. (Short version: yes, though en.WP has already had this handled.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: thank you for that very thorough response. The Land (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

2. What is your view of the WMF's Draft Universal Code of Conduct? Do you believe the WMF has followed an appropriate process to develop it? 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)

@The Land: The first question is answered in my reply to George Ho, up near the top (though I might expand on it later). The second question is kind of philosophical; WMF isn't bound by en.WP processes, and WMF process are not determined by community consensus, so basically WMF process is whatever WMF says it is. This institutional culture clash is not very good for getting mutually agreeable results. More to what is likely your point, I think WMF just deciding what it's going to do, asking a few community questions for a short while (which it mostly ignores), then imposing on all of us whatever it's internally already decided, is just a poor governance model. It has caused a lot of problems. I ankle-bite WMF about this frequently on variety of matters, and resigned on Meta as a WMF Tech Ambassador because of it (see my user page over there for a statement).

Given that UCC was created to deal with WMF projects that don't have much in the way of internal policy, and WP is the opposite, and our policies not only seem to be compatible with most of what I see in there but probably the source of a lot of it, I'm not certain anything of substance will need to change in our policies. However, it is just a draft, it could change at any time, I'm still analyzing it, and writing policy is hard, so there will likely be some not-insurmountable problems. While ArbCom has been thrust into the role of en.WP vs. WMF go-between sometimes, this is neither ArbCom official purpose, or WMF's usual way of communicating with a project; it's just what has to be done in emergencies like WP:FRAMBAN. I'm not certain that should change. What WMF needs to be doing better is learning how each community operates, and communicating what it thinks WMF-wide rules should be, to a much larger audience among the community, and taking their input more seriously. So, WMF "interfacing" a lot with our ArbCom isn't really going to help (and might make things worse; e.g. if our Arbs don't identify a problem, WMF might later claim that "English Wikipedia said" there isn't a problem.

However, if WMF's final version of this has as much boneheaded wording in it as the current draft, then we may still need ArbCom occasionally acting as an community–WMF mediator, to ensure that a community policy written on this site to address the same categorical issue as a section in the UCC, can serve as our implementation of that UCC section, even if the exact wording can be interpreted differently and is less or more restrictive (e.g. we have a much more nuanced definition/implementation of civility than UCC's "politeness in behaviour and speech amongst people").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Epiphyllumlover

2. In a content dispute over this past year, I applied BLP to a maternal article's coverage dealing with a particular fetus. I eventually "won" the argument but I wondered if the policies would back me up if it was brought to the authorities. Would you grant BLP to fetuses?

   @Epiphyllumlover: It's difficult and potentially hazardous to address this in detail without specifics. Generally speaking, a policy doesn't apply to things that the policy doesn't cover, either in specifics or in really obvious spirit. The mother and other family members are likely to have BLPPRIVACY interests at stake (assuming any of this were recent enough to trigger BLP at all; there needs to be a living or recently deceased party in there somewhere). The fact that something (e.g. about a pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage, after announcement of the forthcoming baby's name already, etc.) can be verified doesn't automatically make it encyclopedic material. NOT policy also addresses this to some extent, especially INDISCRIMINATE, SOCIAL, GOSSIP. Meanwhile, ABOUTSELF has limits; it's intended to permit us to include self-published and non-controversial facts a subject would consider important and which are encyclopedic (e.g. their preferred pronouns, whether they use a diacritic in their name, their espoused position on something, etc.). It cannot be used as a weapon against them that would enable editors to dwell inappropriately on private-life details.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for these details, and for explaining in another message to me with clarification that ArbCom cannot make policy in areas that have not previously been decided. That is especially what I was looking for.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

2. This paper from the Berkeley Technology Law Journal has graphs on page 42 of the pdf (158 in typed pagination) demonstrating a chilling effect on Wikipedia articles pertaining to terrorism. The chilling effect was caused by widespread media coverage following Snowden's reports about government surveillance. Apparently people were concerned that the government was monitoring their activities online and were less likely to research terrorism related topics, which in turn impacted Wikipedia viewership. Do you think that Discretionary Sanctions notices exert a chilling effect on editors? That is, do you think editors who receive a DS notice may become concerned that their activities are being monitored and decide not to edit as a result? (per The left-wing bias of Wikipedia by Shuichi Tezuka and Linda A. Ashtear, discipline on Wikipedia is not politically balanced)

@Epiphyllumlover: Interesting paper; I hadn't seen that one yet. Below, I'm going to go a bit "campaign platform", since ACE2020 voters are apt to care more about specific reform ideas than general hand-waving about what I think works well or doesn't.

A) I'm skeptical that article-level notices – {{Ds/talk notice}}, {{Ds/editnotice}} – or user-talk ones – {{Ds/alert}} – have a chilling effect in this particular sense – i.e., that people think they are in enhanced danger of governmental surveillance by going to such a topic.

B) However, DS very clearly has internal chilling effects:

1. Brand new users find these article-level notices BITEy, a bunch of alarming "OMG! WTF!" kind of noise in the editing environment. {{Ds/editnotice}} (which pops up a huge warning banner every time you try to edit a page covered by DS) in particular seems threatening and almost like it's some kind of internal surveillance ("We are watching what you edit, and we think you're up to suspicious activity!"). It doesn't matter that it's not intended and technically couldn't work that way; the user has no basis to understand that yet.
2. All editors find {{Ds/alert}} on their user-talk page threatening. Years of sporadic revision (largely spearheaded by me, actually) have only barely eased this. No one ever responds with "Thanks, I wasn't aware of DS and its application to this topic." It is uniformly interpreted as an actionable warning for alleged transgressions when left by an admin, and as a threat of noticeboard drama (and an attempt to get the upper-hand in a dispute) when left by a non-admin. The entire DS "notice and awareness" stuff is nonsensical and pointless BUREAUCRACY to begin with. Editors know it, admins know it, even a lot of Arbs know it.
3. See also followup Q&A with Atsme on the talk page: there are in fact some admins engaging in on-site surveillance of particular DS topics and user activity within them, with an eye to whom they can banhammer. That concern is not idle at all, though I've already seen two Arbs criticise the practice, and expect it will not be allowed to continue [explicitly, anyway; we have no control over what kinds of "dirt lists" people build on their own hard drives]. Similarly, someone (another candidate, actually) had CheckUser access revoked this year for "use of the CheckUser tool ... contrary to local and global policies prohibiting checking accounts where there is insufficient evidence to suspect abusive sockpuppetry ('fishing'). ... [That admin] has subsequently ... [been] unwilling to comply with these restrictions, continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request." So, on-site concerns about "surveillance" are not entirely unwarranted.
4. New-ish editors feel discouraged from participating in DS-encumbered topics just because of the general miasma of drama surrounding them, and the fact that topic-specific DS are often wildly inconsistent; they end up looking like "gotcha!" traps waiting to be sprung. So why bother trying to improve content in such a topic? It's easier to just go work on articles about songs or cartoon characters. This "drama cloud" problem also applies to community general-sanctions (GS) topics to an extent; the templating is similar. The participation-discouragement is probably not 100% curable, but revision of the wording might help, as definitely would a disuse or elimination of the editnotice versions of the templates in favor of the talk_notice ones, which just sit atop the article's talk page.
5. Old-hand editors are actually even more suppressed from involvement in DS topics, because they actually know what much of that "FUD" in the DS notices means, and have already seen in dramatic detail what can happen (often inequitably) to accused transgressors at the hands of AE, RFARB, or even drive-by admins fond of flexing their near-unaccountable DS muscle. The inequitability of enforcement examined in the second paper you linked to is something I've addressed in answer to Q2 from A7V2, above, but it is only one form of such one-sidedness.

As I've said in other Q&As on this page: Aside from seriously overhauling or even retiring DS, at very least ArbCom needs to apply DS to fewer topic areas, more narrowly defined ones, with fewer nit-picky and inconsistent "trap waiting to be sprung" provisions, and for limited periods of time rather than as perpetual clouds of chill and menace over large categories of content. Nor should DS ever be applied to internal deliberations like policy-formation processes, only public-facing content topics.

It would be much better (and much closer to ArbCom's actual remit) to address specific behaviors of specific editors. This is where long-term and broadly-construed remedies are actually effective (more so than escalating blocks), along with one-way I-bans for harassers, and explicit reform of two-way I-bans as being pure peacekeeping without any implication of wrongdoing (if there was also wrongdoing, that should be a separate remedy). In short, specific editors are the problem (often only topically and temporarily), not the topics themselves. To the extent a topic of real-world controversy seems to attract disruption, most often by new arrivals, then community GS should be able to handle it (though may also need some revision).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:00, 30 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)

   @Instant Comma: Hands-down, it is off-site-organized groups of people who are PoV-pushing in our content, whether that be for ideological reasons, to promote a company and its products, to do the work of a state, etc. As WP's influence and importance grows, the urge felt to manipulate its content grows, and as we can see from things like Twitter and Facebook getting practically taken over as propaganda farms by Russia-funded (among other) "hacker" groups, this is not a maybe-kinda-sorta risk, but a serious factor in our world. I said more about this above, in response to the question from IP user 2600:1004:*.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from TRM

2. Will you pledge to reduce your verbosity? Just a quick look at the answers you've opted to give above demonstrates a very wordy answer to everything and anything. Sometimes, saying something briefly is much more effective than saying it verbosely. I am a strong advocate of what you represent for Wikipedia, but as you know, I'm often overwhelmed by the verbiage, as are others. Can you work on that, please, and then we can all vote for you?

   @The Rambling Man: Short version: yes. For more detail, see my answer to Nosebagbear's similar question, and my "pre-answer" to questions of this sort. The purpose of this particular page isn't to present an essay for everyone to read top-to-bottom (though some will). It is to answer specific individuals' questions with in-depth answers. And the questions this year are unusually nuanced due to recent events of site-wide (even WMF-wide) controversy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 26 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?

   @Genericusername57: No. Several reasons: ArbCom doesn't adjudicate content. It's not in the UCC, and ArbCom doesn't have any say over what is in it. ArbCom doesn't even make policy on en.Wikipedia. Religious things of this sort are cultural matters, not a central part of IDENTITY, so WP's approach to them is radically different. We already have P&G material on this, e.g. ISMCAPS, when it comes to our subjects. "Religious names" in your question could have various interpretations, but: Wikipedia uses the most common name found in reliable sources (see COMMONNAME), and reports in articles the names found in RS (within sensible bounds which range from ABOUTSELF to NICKCRUFT, BLPPRIV and DEADNAME to INDISCRIMINATE). With regard to editors, we use whatever names they choose to provide, and WP doesn't doesn't do any kind of background verification; attempting to it yourself is obviously constrained by HARASS and OUTING. An editor insisting that other editors call them by some title or honorific would interfere with other editors' religious rights (e.g. if I call myself Rev./Revd McCandlish, I may not be reverend to you, and it might even be against your religion to say that I am). Back to content, WP does not append "PBUH" after the names of prophets, or write "our Lord Jesus Christ", or do other things that non-neutrally align with particular religious positions.

   This all generally goes for non-religious titles, too. Real example: WP for several years had an editor who was a British duke (seems inactive now). Some other editors who are subjects of the British crown decided to refer to him as "your grace" when addressing him directly, as they likely would if they met him at a social function or wrote him a letter; others did not. Editors who were not subjects of the British monarchy did not do this, of course. And if that editor has demanded that anyone do so, he probably would have been swiftly blocked as disruptive (he did not). More generally: various people who are professors and doctors and judges and so on are WP editors, but they do not use titles here, and we usually have no idea whether anyone's claim to such credentials is legit or roleplaying, nor does it matter (see IAC and VESTED among many other essays for why). We do not prepend/append professional and honorific titles to names in articles (except, for some of them, in the lead/infobox of their own bio; see CREDENTIAL, and MOS:BIO#Titles of people). USERNAME policy gives the community broad leeway to consider a username inappropriate, which might be the case if the purpose of one that included a title seemed to be to assert credentials and authority in a topic, and then actually misuse the account that way for OWN-ish, PoV-pushing, and other rather NOTHERE purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Grillofrances

2. Are you sure you'll have enough time for ArbCom after the pandemic ends?

   @Grillofrances: As sure as I can be, I suppose. I don't think the pandemic is ending any time soon (forthcoming-vaccine hype notwithstanding) I'm not a 9–5 worker, nor do I have other major pressures on my time (children who need their dinner, etc.). I also have near-infinite patience with wiki-geekery, and much of ArbCom's work is done out-of-band via e-mail, which I can get on my phone. I need not be at my desk 24/7.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from David Tornheim

2. During your current run for ArbCom you commented on Jytdog's talk page in support of the thread Jytdog should consider returning back, where you say, "I miss Jytdog". Will you recuse yourself if Jytdog does attempt to return? The relevant case where ArbCom banned Jytdog is here. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

   @David Tornheim: Possibly. I'm not a "wiki-friend" of Jytdog (and have argued with him aplenty on various things). The point of my post was that various serious lapses of judgment have cost us several of the most attentive patrollers of WP:MEDRS compliance (either completely or due to topic bans, etc.). Because I'm rather more serious than average about ArbCom not giving the community a reason to suspect (however reasonably or unreasonably) personal bias for and against particular parties, I would probably recuse if anyone thought that post was somehow prejudicial. To be clear, though, I certainly do not mean it as "Jydog should be allowed to return no matter what"; rather, I would hope that Jydog understands what he did wrong and will make it clear to the community he knows it was a mistake and why, and that nothing like it will happen again.

   I'm also not privy to whatever the private evidence was in that case. I gather that the person he phoned up was alarmed at being contacted out of the blue after Jytdog figure out how to contact her offline; but I don't know the content of the conversation, which might have been very well-meaning, or very not. Seeing all of the evidence would strongly affect my views on whether Jytdog should actually be permitted to return at all. (Because I edit under my real name, and have been pretty public on social media, I've once in a while had editors contact me unexpectedly through other venues. I did find it a bit strange, but it was also people in similar lines of work and stuff; they probably thought it was usual "colleagues contacting colleagues" stuff, despite the WP connection. But they also were not particularly argumentative much less hostile. And I'm not a woman being contacted by a man out of the blue; I know the dynamic is different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

4. What is your view of deletion of detractors ([7], [8]) on Jytdog's talk page including a threat to block editors who restore criticism on that page? --David Tornheim (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

   I saw some of that (while I was at that particular admin's talk page, actually). I don't agree with that sort of thing all that much, in general. While WP:GRAVEDANCING is a shortcut, it's not exactly a policy, and user talk pages do exist in part to air out inter-editorial behavior issues. In this case, though, there's a mitigating factor here: while Jytdog has not literally had talk-page access revoked, his block states "must contact ArbCom to resume editing", which strongly implies he is soft-blocked rather than technical-blocked from even editing own talk page. So, he is not in a position to defend himself or even try to make amends to people. That is, his talk page wouldn't be serving the intended inter-editor discussion purpose if used for "venting" in such a case, and it would basically be an especially demoralizing version of WP:POLEMIC (not just a dirt list in userspace, but a dirt list against him by others in his own). That "The next person who reinserts the gravedancing post will be blocked" threat is a maybe a little over-the-top, but editwarring isn't permissible just because someone feels strongly that they wanna do it. So an argument can be made that it's within administrative discretion. We give admins pretty wide leeway in judging such matters.

   In the end, I don't think it would be my purview to say "I think this is right behavior" or "... wrong behavior" while imagining myself thinking about this as an Arb. If some dust-up did happen because of this gravedancing-on-Jytdog's-page stuff, then ArbCom would be obliged to examine the evidence presented (including policy and community-norms arguments), pro and con. In my case, I'm aware of several previous incidents of "stop gravedancing" enforcement, and even administrative demands that conversation winding down between editors A and B at the talk page of editor C cease immediately after C received a topic ban about the subject, in mid-thread. So, the principle of not using someone else's talk page as a place to "air issues" about them or even an issue surrounding them in which they can no longer speak back, seems to actually be fairly well accepted in the community. If the admin in question did issue such a block, I do not expect that any action against the admin for doing it would be taken up, though if the block were not quite short, I think another admin would undo it pretty quickly, per preventative not punitive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:00, 5 December 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) 16:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   @Robert McClenon: Newslinger asked me essentially the same question way up above, and I think the answer there (and its talk page addedum) will cover this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:08, 5 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) 16:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

   On just the literal question of "when ArbCom should accept" such a case, it would be when there is strong initial evidence of a conduct problem, and it has been aired multiple times in community noticeboards, yet without effective resolution. That is, the "net positive/negative" analysis should not be a part of the case acceptance/rejection, nor even for that matter whether to impose a remedy or not (though it will likely be a factor in the exact remedy/remedies to be applied if it's clear that one does need to be applied). On the overall background of this sort of matter (including so-called "unblockables", and ArbCom's apparent reluctance to take cases involving admin-behavior complaints), see my answer and talk-page addendum to Calidum, way up above. I went into a lot of detail about this stuff, including potential solutions to such balance problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)