Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/L235/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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

---

Question from Gerda

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

   I haven't personally been involved in infobox disputes. From my vantage point and without having proactively searched for problems, while there is still disagreement in the community about the usefulness of infoboxes on particular articles, there haven't been widespread infobox conduct issues since the Civility case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from ProcrastinatingReader

2. The first step to solving a problem is probably to form the right questions. This is probably what I was lacking the last time we spoke about this issue, and likely still am; it seems a difficult issue. It seems a lot of members have ran on at least a partial platform of DS reform, or complained about it in other discussions, but few have managed to get anything done. Any thoughts on why this is; mainly how would one go about getting something done? If it starts with a consultation (like the 2013 discussion), what kinds of questions should be asked to understand the crux of the issue? Boldly, I ask your thoughts on whether DS is even still necessary today?

   Thanks for the question – as you know from our discussions I've spent several years now thinking about these issues. I might expand on this answer but I wanted to get my initial thoughts on the table to avoid keeping you waiting.

   DS is hard to reform because it has grown to serve different purposes for different AE admins in many different topics, and everyone has a somewhat different idea of what parts needs reform. “Reforming discretionary sanctions” is a task akin to “reforming the administrator policy”; to get anything done you’ll need to think carefully about what you want to change and why, and make sure that everyone gets heard. This year I’m optimistic that substantive reform will happen because many candidates have recognized the importance of DS reform often in their candidate statements, but of course newly elected arbitrators usually quickly realize just how time-consuming the other aspects of the role are and so it will take a lot of active effort to keep DS reform a priority.

   I don’t know the specific questions I’d ask at a formal consultation since those questions should probably be carefully formulated through discussion. The three questions I think are most important to get a sense of the community’s position are:

   • What is the purpose of discretionary sanctions? What is the problem it’s designed to solve?
     • I’d ask this question because there’s a surprising amount of disagreement about what DS is for, and this shapes the kinds of reforms we ought to do:
     • If you think, like some do (including at least one sitting arb), that the primary purpose of DS is to address unblockables, then it might be reasonable to scrap DS entirely, since while there are still some “cowboy” admins the norms around ordinary admin actions have changed and it’s much less of a problem than it was a decade ago.
     • If you think DS exists primarily to provide greater flexibility for admins (such as topic bans and page restrictions a la 1RR/consensus required/enforced BRD), perhaps DS as a whole should stay but the “first-mover” advantage should be loosened.
     • If you think an important purpose of DS is to act as a signpost for admins and editors, telling them that everyone should act more carefully and observe our policies and norms strictly (the idea is we should be more careful with e.g. American politics and BLPs than with e.g. Pokemon articles), then we should focus reform efforts on making our messaging better. We can focus on reforming alerts, talk page notices, and other banners to make them less intimidating and more informative about what kinds of conduct is allowed and what is less tolerated.
   • What is currently confusing about discretionary sanctions?
     • There’s a lot that can be clarified, or even codified in one place (a lot of precedent has been established through individual ARCAs and isn’t actually on the WP:AC/DS page). The folks I’ve talked to about this have different ideas about what’s confusing, though, and attempts at changing the templates have generally only fixed one thing at a time while leaving other problems unsolved.
     • My biggest pet peeve about DS is the way it’s been named and communicated. “Discretionary sanctions” doesn’t mean a lot to a newbie editor; instead of conveying the procedural aspects, we should convey what it means. Perhaps we should call it “topics under heightened scrutiny” or something along those lines, and communicate in simpler language the purpose and effect of discretionary sanctions. Or perhaps we should try another communication strategy. Either way, my hunch is the scary word “sanctions” combined with the legalese drives away good-faith contributors who would have otherwise become longer-term editors.
   • What are your biggest pain points when interacting with discretionary sanctions?
     • This is a more general question but I hope it will get at the big problems. Does it allow admins to OWN articles? Does it reduce accountability? Is it too impersonal, too quick to blame? Are the standards arbitrary or unclear? Or are people able to game the system? I have my ideas, but I keep an open mind and I want to hear what everyone else thinks.

   As we’ve talked about, I think DS serves important purposes that aren’t well adapted into other admin functions without a lot of effort. I think we can reform DS without abolishing it, and I hope the above is helpful for a sense of what I’m thinking. But this is a big topic and I look forward to listening to others’ ideas. I’ve written a lot here because DS affects a huge slice of the encyclopedia and is arguably one of the most impactful things that ArbCom has ever done, but if anything is unclear or you’d like to follow up on anything, please feel free (ProcReader or anyone else) to ask further questions about this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(ElectCom comment) ProcrastinatingReader, by my count that's three questions in one ("why do people who run on a platfom of DS reform not succeed," "how would one go about requesting changes," and "why is DS necessary?"). Could you please modify your question so that you are under the two-question limit? GeneralNotability (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability modified; does this work? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, yup, thank you. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from George Ho

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

   In discussions that I’ve had with WMF staff, I’ve gotten the impression that the UCoC is not intended to affect enwiki or other big wikis with a usually-robust set of dispute resolution systems and standards. I don’t know what the UCoC will look like in implementation, but I’m cautiously optimistic that having the UCoC will be a net positive for the wikis that need it. However, these kinds of global enforcement mechanisms shouldn’t extend to wikis like enwiki where any outside intervention will cause more harm than good. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:04, 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?

   I allude to this in my candidate statement, and I hope you don’t see this as evading your question, but I think the ArbCom decisions that are by far the most impactful on the editing community at large are those with general applicability: discretionary sanctions, topic-wide 500/30, etc. Cases like the ARBPIA series especially stand out for their broad implications.

   I’ve never personally been party to an arbitration case in large part because over the last five and a half years I have done my best to avoid disputes that look like they’re headed for ArbCom. As I was for several years the primary active clerk, it was important for me to avoid involving myself in ways that would require recusal. There are certainly cases that impact my wiki contributions; for example, this ArbCom case authorized the anti-harassment RfC, which I co-closed (though I will say Primefac did the lion’s share of the work). There are few cases that actually affect my routine contributions, but if you forced me to choose a single case it might be WP:ARBAP2 as I spent a bit of time this fall monitoring election-related misinformation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:04, 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) 01:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   The Committee should carefully review all evidence that is relevant to the case, and shouldn’t make a decision until it’s satisfied that the result will be valid and accurate. This is made possible, however, only if every party does their best to submit evidence that they want to see considered by ArbCom. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:04, 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) 01:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   In a typical arbitration case, the most valuable contributions by uninvolved editors are cogent, considered evidence submissions and thoughtful analysis of evidence. “Throw-away” comments are not generally very useful.

   I don’t think this is what you’re asking about, but aside from initial cases, there are times when community opinion should be very important to ArbCom. In particular, when the Committee considers appeals by banned editors, it should generally provide a meaningful opportunity for the community to comment on any proposed unban and take those comments into account as a major factor (often the most important factor). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

L235: Thank you for your answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Newslinger

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

   This is an insightful question about the relationship between content and conduct disputes. To answer your question literally, I’m having trouble thinking of a case where a pure dispute over the reliability of a source would be a conduct dispute, but certainly there are adjacent issues that would be conduct disputes: editing against a consensus that a source is or is not reliable, refusal to communicate, WP:POINT, and refusal to drop the stick over an RS dispute are some examples among many. It depends on the specifics, but those are some of the circumstances that would indicate more of a conduct issue. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Calidum

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

   As a co-closer of the RfC (though Primefac deserves the great majority of the credit), I first want to clarify we did not find consensus for the four points we mentioned – AHRFC wasn’t given a mandate to enact changes so most users did not explicitly note their support or opposition for every idea discussed. Personally, I think these points are interesting ones to explore but I’m unconvinced that any particular one will solve the problem of what many like to call “unblockables”, not least because different people have different views on what unblockables are, which is something that is mentioned in our closing statement. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

   I wanted to be sure that I wanted to run, which took until yesterday, and then needed time to write up my statement. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:12, 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)

   In writing the article you quote from, WMF wasn't trying to dictate article content and wasn't declaring what was or was not neutral for WP:NPOV purposes – the editing community and WMF play distinctly different roles. No, there are no topics exempt from NPOV; every page on our site must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and I don't think WMF was saying otherwise. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

4. There is at least a perception of left-wing bias on Wikipedia, both regarding content and internally (for context see [1]. One of the examples given is that for matters relating to Donald Trump, the 2016 US election and Brett Kavanaugh, editors making broadly "pro-Trump" edits were disciplined 6 times more than those making broadly "anti-Trump" edits, but this is not to say this was or wasn't justified). Do you believe this perception to be true, and whether you believe it is true or not, what, if anything, should be done to address it? A7V2 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

   I remember looking at the non-peer-reviewed paper referenced by the article you linked for the "six times more likely to be disciplined" figure, the one titled "Differential rates of disciplinary action reveals evidence of political bias in Wikipedia's arbitration enforcement" by Linda A. Ashtear and Shuichi Tezuka, two pseudonymous authors who also wrote the article in The Critic (not itself a particularly established source, if Draft:The Critic (magazine) is anything to go by). I have significant methodological concerns that make me doubt the accuracy of the conclusions. Take note of this line on page 4: Any application of WP:BOOMERANG in an AE report is coded as an action for the reporting editor. Because of how relatively common the boomerang effect is in AE reports, in which the editor filing the dispute against another editor is also (or sometimes instead) disciplined, each filing editor and each reported editor is included as an individual row of data. Since the reporting editor is considered a potential target for sanctions and it is comparatively unlikely for the reporting editor to be sanctioned, it could very well be the case that editors Ashtear and Tezuka have coded as "anti-Trump" reported "pro-Trump" editors more often at AE, perhaps taking easy cases of throwaway account disruption to AE more often. I haven't examined the underlying data, so I can't say for sure, but I remember being pretty unconvinced by this paper. (Not to mention the complete lack of any systematic methodology describing how Ashtear and Tezuka coded editors as "pro-Trump" or "anti-Trump", clearly a pretty important consideration. If you happen to know Ashtear or Tezuka, please feel free to put them in touch with me.)

   To answer your broader question: In general, I think we do a pretty good job of representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Are there individual problems? Of course, and let's fix them. Is there a left-wing bias in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia? I don't know, and I think that's above my pay grade. At the end of the day, our job is to write about what reliable secondary sources say, and if some outsiders have a problem with that, I'm afraid it's not my job to help them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from AmandaNP

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

   I believe that every editor has a role to play in pushing back against systemic oppression against editors on Wikipedia by standing up for a welcoming, inclusive encyclopedia, and calling out harassment and abuse when they see it. In their roles as editors, arbitrators should model this. As for what ArbCom as a group should do, this is a multidimensional issue but these days the effect of ArbCom’s decisions always goes beyond the individual parties before the Committee. Every one of ArbCom’s decisions sends a message about acceptable and unacceptable conduct, about what will and will not be tolerated. This can put ArbCom in a difficult position on occasion, but the role of the Committee is to help create a project where all editors are supported and treated with respect, and if I am elected I will not shirk from that role. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:39, 20 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)

   This is an important question because in any group like ArbCom it’s easy to give into the groupthink temptation, to go with the flow. Of course, we elect an Arbitration Committee and not a single person because we expect each member of the committee to individually assess matters. On that front, I think my record speaks for itself. As the arbitration clerk with the most unbroken tenure, I have supervised the clerk appointment, training, and confirmation process for years now; while I abide by consensus decisions, my recommendations are always independently considered. As a CheckUser and Oversighter I am often asked for second opinions on cases and suppressions, and just finished the half-year-long process of training an SPI clerk for whom I was primarily responsible for giving an independent perspective. When reviewing others’ actions, I consult with the responsible administrator but retain my own judgment.

   As for specifics on the three areas that you discuss: (1) CheckUser blocks involve a great deal of judgment and sifting through shades of grey. When a block is appealed, often there is not “slam-dunk” evidence either way; in this role, arbitrators must weigh the harm from blocking an innocent editor with the harm from unblocking a sock (while in theory we can re-block after disruption, in practice, it is quite difficult to block after an overturned block, and the disruption is quite often very subtle). I think I’ve consistently executed this role well. (2) The question of whether a check is warranted or not also delves through shades of grey and featured in some tension last June. When drawing the line in the sand I will consider historical practice and interpretation but ultimately my inquiry will center on this one question: Was the check reasonably necessary to prevent or respond to sockpuppetry or disruption? (3) CUOS appointment is one of the most important decisions ArbCom makes every year; functionary appointments aren’t limited-term, and comes with access to significant amounts of private information. My primary criterion will be whether a candidate has a demonstrated record of good judgment and community trust – all else we can train. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:39, 20 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?

   If I didn’t make it clear above, I have a dim view of that article, written by two individuals who say they are academics but refuse to attach their names to their own writing and published in a magazine founded in 2019. Anyway, is it a problem if our core content policies are violated on an article, especially a BLP? Of course! There isn’t any indication, though, that areas subject to discretionary sanctions such as R+I are subject to higher levels of BLP violations than other areas of our encyclopedia, and the authors here don’t claim so – even in their paper with dubious methodology. For the rest of your question, please see the last paragraph of my response to A7V2 above. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Espresso Addict

2. According to XTools, you have somewhat over 4000 contributions to mainspace on en-wiki. Do you think this places you well to understand the situation of content contributors? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks for your question. I don’t know if edit count is a good reflection of someone’s level of understanding for the circumstances of content contributors. I’m proud to feature credits for the GA and half-dozen DYKs that I wrote on my userpage; I’m no Barkeep49, but I think I’ve used my over 4000 contributions to mainspace well. At my RfA, a number of editors explicitly expressed faith in my content experience; comments included good content creation with over 9 articles including a GA, Good track record, content creation, I have been impressed by Kevin's work [...] in content curation, and raw content creation (single handedly wrote Lafler v. Cooper and brought it to GA!). You’re exactly right, though, that content contributors deserve to have an ArbCom they can trust will understand how much work they’ve put into articles, how sometimes collaborative writing can be a tense process, how there’s a sense of pride in the work. After all, we’re a content encyclopedia; in the end, ArbCom’s job is to try to keep the encyclopedia a productive place for undisruptive editors. I don’t have hundreds of GA credits, but I hope that I earn your trust for this role. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Atsme

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

   The propriety of AE actions is heavily fact-dependent, so I couldn't say anything specific, but administrators should not impose sanctions for the purpose of denying an editor the opportunity to defend themselves. Wikipedians ought never be as a result of a sanction put in a position where they are unable to reasonably defend themselves against allegations of misconduct. My hope is that it's harder than you imagine to deny editors the opportunity to defend themselves in practice, because WP:BANEX says that Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution is an exception to restrictions, including AE sanctions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Copyedited KevinL (alt of L235 · t · c) 18:13, 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)?

   You're speaking in pretty general language and I don't know what specifically you have in mind. In particular, I have no idea what the modification of DS by a single administrator to custom-fit the surveilled/analyzed behaviors of targeted editors refers to. Generally, WP:INVOLVED says that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role is not considered to be an involved administrator, but in extreme cases it's plausible that administrative actions demonstrate bias. Every scenario is fact- and context-dependent. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughtful responses, and for demonstrating your excellent critical thinking skills. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 12:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• KevinL, apologies for not adding this sooner - too many irons in the fire - but to add a bit more clarity regarding my questions I've provided a few diffs for you to ponder: DGG stated in this diff: As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be. DGG also expressed concern over "admin involvement" in this diff, and further explains in this diff. And to credit of Awilley for recognizing potential involvement, there is this diff. Atsme 💬 📧 00:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear

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

   I think I fall somewhere down the middle. If I am elected an arbitrator, I will consider the question of whether to desysop independently of whether to impose another sanction, but based on the same kinds of factors: whether the administrator has lost community trust, whether the desysop or other sanction would be a net positive for the encyclopedia, etc. If an administrator is being seriously considered for a very significant sanction (e.g. a topic ban from BLPs or a major topic area), clearly the admin has lost the kind of trust that is generally expected of an administrator and I am likely to vote to desysop. Some other sanctions conceivably don't call into question an admin's trust at the same level: the Medicine case is a good example, because I think it's reasonable to say that the sanctioned administrator in that case is likely to retain community trust in general even if a restriction was necessary in the narrow topic area from which he was restricted. There are a lot of nuances to every situation, so please ask a follow-up question if anything here is unclear or insufficiently detailed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from StraussInTheHouse

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

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

   I haven't looked at all the diffs but I'd lean desysop in the three cases you reference. However, I really don't like the idea of making three specific former administrators an election issue. They didn't ask to be brought up at this election – can you think of anything less fair to the three ex-sysops?

   On the more general question, I think you're right that one of the hardest things for ArbCom to get right is considering the desire to keep good editors (often great editors, terrific editors) as well as the editors that those editors might push out of our project. If I am elected, I will do my best to remember that we are subconsciously biased towards overcounting the identifiable damage from sanctioning one editor and biased against undercounting the unknowable damage from failing to sanction a problematic user when appropriate (somewhat akin to the identifiable victim effect), which might be the loss of many editors. Striking that balance is one of the most important things for any good arbitrator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

   As I said earlier in my response to the UCoC question, I understand the Foundation's desire for more global enforcement mechanisms but think that enwiki's community expects to be able to govern itself and it has set up processes to do so. It should take exceptional and extremely unusual circumstances for the Foundation to consider intervening in enwiki matters outside of the areas they've traditionally worked in (legal matters, child protection, etc.). Historically WMF's involvement in enwiki-only affairs has not seen great results. In that sense I agree with the ArbCom statement you link to. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:47, 24 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? Editors must treat other editors with respect. That includes using the pronouns preferred by other editors as well as making a good-faith effort to follow any other reasonable requests on matters of address. People slip up sometimes, but if a user is intentionally using incorrect pronouns, that user is breaching our harassment policy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Epiphyllumlover

2. Are you willing to explore altering discretionary sanctions to incorporate C. West Churchman's Inquiring Systems or the more recent Cynefin framework? For example, if sanctions are proposed for a particular editor, could that editor have sanctions waived if he or she can show that the offended party was unwilling to communicate using the same general thought pattern? (I mean in the event that the other party chose to talk past the accused editor rather than communicate with him or her; similar to the characters in Dilbert.)

   I am willing to explore pretty much any option; see my lengthy answer above to the more general DS question. Based on a skim of the two links you included, someone is going to have to explain them to me in more detail for me to make any meaningful analysis of how they would apply to discretionary sanctions, which is itself not a good sign because ArbCom procedures should be written in a way that is generally understandable to everyone (in fact, this is one of the things I want to address about DS; see the link above). Regarding your example, failure to communicate is certainly considered at AE, but I get the sense that's not really what you're asking about. Is there a concrete problem that you can point me to with the way DS currently works? If so, you should make sure to bring it up in any consultations that I will push ArbCom to hold next year. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I responded at User_talk:L235#Follow-up.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:12, 24 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^✉ 21:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   Almost by definition, it's pretty rare for new editors to be involved in ArbCom cases, but the problem that you point at is very real: our policies and guidelines are vast and even editors who have been around for several months are seldom familiar with all the important ones, much less all of them. Wikipedia is a more complex project than it was 15 years ago, and it will continue getting more complex. At every level of conduct dispute resolution, care is taken that editors be sufficiently informed/warned about the relevant policies and practices before sanctions are imposed. But often new users still feel bitten, and to address that we need to reduce the barriers to getting familiar with our policies. Amendments to policy fall outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee, but in the rare cases where new editors are parties to arbitration cases, it's reasonable to take that into consideration. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from The Land

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

   Thank you for your question. First, I reiterate my answer to the now-collapsed question above: "Editors must treat other editors with respect. That includes using the pronouns preferred by other editors as well as making a good-faith effort to follow any other reasonable requests on matters of address. People slip up sometimes, but if a user is intentionally using incorrect pronouns, that user is breaching our harassment policy."

   To answer your question, I think the statement you quote should be an enforceable requirement; I have no opinion about whether it should be in the UCoC, in harassment policy, in the TOU, or in some other place. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

   Regarding your first question: I don't know. I wish I'd been informed of the applications for the drafting committee earlier, and my hunch is that many Wikimedians were caught off guard when its membership was announced. One thing that I find frustrating is that while every WMF staff member I've interacted with has been well-intentioned and dedicated, many are completely unfamiliar with our norms or even with the experience of day-to-day editing. That leads to situations where the Foundation doesn't know where to look for community input and doesn't take seriously the input that it does get. I don't know how much that happened in this case, but it happens often enough that I thought I'd mention it.

   To answer your second question, as I said in my response to George Ho, I don't think the UCoC will substantially affect enwiki or the enwiki ArbCom – at least, that's what I've heard from WMF staff. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:03, 24 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)

   My answer would probably change by the day because there are many big challenges we face: systemic bias, coordinated misinformation, perverse incentives in undisclosed paid editing, politicization/polarization of trust in the media ecosystem, community-Foundation relations, and the (un-)reliability of small projects are just a few of many.

   Right now, what I am concerned about is the declining supply of editor-hours relative to what we need to sustain our encyclopedia (even without counting the hard work necessary to research and write new content). There's a "supply" side and a "demand" side. What I mean by the "demand" side is this: over the last 19 years, we've created a lot of process. That's not in itself a bad thing; a lot of these processes serve very important purposes and have allowed Wikipedia to mature. AfD, NPP, and AfC let us set standards for what kinds of topics we can have articles about. RfCs allow us to get a definite consensus when needed. AIV and recent changes patrol prevent most bad faith editing. SPI helps respond to long term abuse and harassment and allows for some level of enforcement for our conduct rules. There's UAA, RFPP, DRV, unblock appeals and UTRS, AN/ANI, RS/N, OTRS, the Teahouse, and many many more. And let's not forget the mother of all process, the Arbitration Committee itself.

   Certainly, none of these processes are perfect. But they all fill functions that are necessary for the encyclopedia to work well. In fact, as I write here, the price we pay for our one-of-a-kind free open encyclopedia that everyone can edit is that lots of things take way more editor-hours than they otherwise would. We could have an editor in chief and axe AfC, AfD, and all content RfCs, but that would be antithetical to our spirit, and so we keep our decentralized content review processes – rightly so.

   But the "demand" problem I articulate earlier is this: we don't have enough editor hours to properly staff all our processes. Already a frightful number of AfDs have completely insufficient participation by the time they run out. Many content RfCs see embarrassingly low participation. The backlog at AfC is 3,279 drafts (3+ months), and that's actually lower than I remember. And I just checked: the oldest tickets in the checkuser-en-wp and paid-en-wp OTRS queues are over a year old. This is not to say that AfD participants, RfC participants, AfC reviewers, or CUs are lazy or incompetent – exactly the opposite, in fact: these dedicated volunteers are being stretched thin, and there aren't nearly enough editor hours to go around to cover all of the important process that we have.

   At the same time, we have a "supply" problem. It's no secret that we do a poor job of recruiting new contributors. This is, in fact, an existential crisis that we need to recognize and step up to meet – one that both enwiki community leaders and the Foundation give lip service to but have not taken the time to seriously study for some time. I don't really know what drives people to want to contribute in the first place, but we certainly don't make it easy. Our policies and norms could fill several novels, and our unwritten norms are so extensive that most veteran editors occasionally run afoul of them by accident. We have probably the worst onboarding experience for new users out of any website in the top 100, and a lot of the time folks get treated like dirt when they join – maybe not as "standard practice", but our openness gives everyone the ability to generate official-looking warnings and post them with anyone. That's not to mention complaints of harassment and bias when trying to contribute.

   A not-insignificant part of it that we ought to recognize is that, of course, it takes quite a bit of skill to edit Wikipedia. We brand ourselves as "anyone can edit", but we really mean "anyone who has general competence, enough social skills to get along with others on the internet, and skill in research and writing" can attempt to volunteer hours of their time trying to make a small difference in an often-hostile environment.

   Another way to put it: I love Wikipedia, I love the time I spend on Wikipedia, and I love the feeling of making a bit of a difference here. But even I wouldn't recommend that anyone I know in real life try to edit here. I've been asked, and I think the only honest response is to talk through all of what I said above.

   There are lots of things that I think might help with this. Some of the ideas I've talked about in answers above or in my statement might help a bit. But this is not primarily an ArbCom problem, nor is it a problem that any one answer will solve. When confronting problems like this, I am grateful that this project comprises thousands upon thousands of immensely talented people, people who built one of the finest human works in history – a monument to knowledge, free for anyone to access, anywhere. If there's anyone who can get through this, it's us. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for this! Instant Comma (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Natureium

2. What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

   ArbCom doesn't rule on content. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

4. Do you think that someone who asks candidates the airspeed of an unladen swallow should be NOTHERE'd? Do you agree with an election commissioner that mentioning this question is a spilling of BEANS?

   Yes. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

6. Do you think that it is appropriate to call yourself "Best" when you don't answer the question?

   No. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:54, 27 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?

   The UCoC is not a content policy; it is not intended to affect the content of articles, where MOS:HONORIFIC controls. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Grillofrances

2. In your public statement, you've mentioned that you currently study so how likely is it that in the nearest months you will study and work at the same time (for money or to get professional experience) so you won't have enough time for ArbCom?

   Thank you for your question. I thought long and hard about the time commitment involved with ArbCom before standing as a candidate. Serving on ArbCom will involve significant personal and professional sacrifice, but this is true for most people who serve on ArbCom. I'm certainly not running for personal convenience – it's no surprise to anyone that service on ArbCom is generally not a wholly pleasant task. As for your specific question, I'm not planning on sharing further personal details about my life. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from David Tornheim

2. Do you believe there should be a deadline for ArbCom to rule on appeals filed at WP:ARCA per these ([7], [8]) ArbCom policies? Do you feel it would be beneficial to have more process deadlines for ArbCom action in cases where there currently are none? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   Maybe, but honestly, I don't know. You're absolutely right that ARCAs often languish for far too long, but I don't know what "deadlines" do – it's not like ArbCom "gets in trouble" for missing its other deadlines. If I'm elected I'm willing to try a deadline depending on what my fellow arbs think. There are a couple other reforms that I think might be helpful as well:

   • Currently, it takes a majority of all active arbitrators to make an ArbCom decision. This makes disposing of ARCAs (especially potentially meritorious ones) dreadfully slow, and I have heard that it makes ArbCom's private docket very slow as well. We can change this by saying that any arbitrator who doesn't within one week affirmatively either (a) vote on the motion or (b) say that they're planning on voting on the motion should be treated as abstaining on the motion for the purposes of forming a majority. Perhaps that would speed things up.
   • As a clerk I have on occasion sent reminder emails to arbitrators with a summary of the current pending business and who hasn't voted on pending matters; other clerks do this on occasion as well. These reminders sometimes jolt arbs into doing on-wiki arb-ing that they've forgotten to do. These have never been formally established in policy, though; perhaps something that would help is standardizing (maybe semi-automating) the format of these reports and directing the clerks to send them once a week.

   Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

4. According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   I don't want to wade too far into the specifics of a content question in an area that has been and possibly will again be in the future the subject of ArbCom proceedings. And I want to emphasize that my answer here is based on first impressions; in the event that the topic comes before the Committee again, I will independently evaluate the evidence, and I don't believe my answer here constitutes grounds for recusal.

   Anyway: Here on Wikipedia, MEDRS is the controlling guideline for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. That guideline requires the use of high-quality medical sources that, as far as I can tell, generally back up the claims in our article. I read some of the reviews and meta-analyses cited in the article, and they seem generally consistent with the propositions for which they are cited. Our article certainly does not dismiss acupuncture's potential effectiveness in treating pain; for example, one sentence currently present in the lede is One meta-analysis found that acupuncture for chronic low back pain was cost-effective as an adjunct to standard care, while a separate systematic review found insufficient evidence for the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic low back pain. I haven't looked at all the sources and I certainly haven't gone to find other sources that aren't cited, though, so I couldn't tell you if my picture is skewed because of the sources that I happened to look at.

   One thing I did notice at a glance is this sentence in the lede: The conclusions of trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture are inconsistent, which suggests that it is not effective. This sentence is cited to two seemingly-high-quality reviews and one editorial (which is not considered reliable for MEDRS purposes). The two reviews seem to support the first half of the sentence without reaching the dependent clause, while the editorial is not reliable. Perhaps I'm missing something – I've only looked at this a little bit – but without further sourcing, the presence of the dependent clause in Wikipedia's voice looks to me like it could be inappropriate SYNTH.

   Returning to your question: Britannica's article is a bit shoddier than ours. It's only a handful of paragraphs, and we don't know where the information came from because Britannica did not cite the sources it used for this article (neither published sources nor experts consulted). Indeed, this article has changed very little since it was uploaded in 1998, and is attributed to "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica", which means the bulk of it was written by the 1970s. The 1970s! Almost all of the sources we present in our article are more recent than the 1970s. The only edits since then have been minor, stylistic edits, and having looked up the nine editors to have made those edits, the sum total of the medical credentials I could find was a BS in Biology. Among all of the cited authors of this article! Not a single one had a graduate degree in biology or any medicine-related field, and their article fails to cite even one source that would meet our MEDRS requirements. If you asked me which article I trust more, it'd be the Wikipedia one, no question. Your question was why the articles strike a different tone? My answer is that ours is decent and up-to-date (even if at a glance it seems there are ways we can improve it), and theirs is poorly sourced and hasn't been substantially updated since the 1970s. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:33, 6 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) 18:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   Conduct disputes that relate to content should be treated the same way as other conduct disputes: if prior steps in dispute resolution have been exhausted or the community seems otherwise incapable of resolving the issue, and ArbCom's involvement is likely to help, then ArbCom should accept the case. "ArbCom doesn't rule on content" means that ArbCom shouldn't decide who's right on the content front, not that the existence of a content dispute is a shield from our conduct policies. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:44, 6 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) 18:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   This is a different question from the one above, but my answer is going to be similar. Cases involving editors with a long history of both positive and negative contributions should be if treated the same as other requests: if prior steps in dispute resolution have been exhausted or the community seems otherwise incapable of resolving the issue, and ArbCom's involvement is likely to help, then ArbCom should accept the case. The best outcome is the creation of a structure within which the editor can be a net positive, but in the event that ArbCom finds that an editor's conduct has been and will continue to be (regardless of any intervention) a net negative, that editor should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. That's never the optimal outcome, of course, and if I am elected, I hope that I will not have to cast many votes to site-ban long-productive editors. But ArbCom exists to make hard decisions, and if I am elected I will not hesitate to make them when I have to. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Egroeg5

2. Obviously we should keep UNDUE WEIGHT and BALANCE in mind while editing, but do you think Wikipedia should move more towards an attitude of "as long as you're adding content accompanied by a source, any source, we won't delete it"? Egroeg5 (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

   It's 3am here, so I apologize if this is more brief than it otherwise would have been but I won't have much of an opportunity to answer this before voting closes after I wake up. Does "any source" include unreliable sources? Then no. Nest, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

4. I hope David Tornheim doesn't mind my asking one of his questions for another candidate. Egroeg5 (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
   It is often asserted that ArbCom cannot rule on content. I assume that means it will not decide specifically what should be in an article. But what if part of a dispute has to do with allegations that an editor(s) is lying about content in a source(s), using contradictory or double-standards as to what qualifies as WP:RS in the topic area, preferring inferior sources over superior sources, preferring outdated sources to current sources, dismissing high quality sources that articulate views the editor(s) does not want in the article, and other behavior that create bias in an article in violation of WP:NPOV. Do you believe ArbCom could handle such an issue? How about this case? Would you as an Arb be willing to look at a source’s content to verify whether an editor was or was not lying or misrepresenting the source’s content? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

   Please see my responses to Newslinger's question and Robert McClenon's question above. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)