Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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

---

Questions from Kudpung

2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?

   I'd prefer that the arbitration committee does no investigation themselves - where evidence is incorrect, I would expect that to be highlighted by other case participants. There's many good reasons for that, from the skillset of the arbitrators, to lack of time and resources, to the loss of basic fairness (that participants can see what they're dealing with)
   What the committee does have a duty to do is weigh the evidence, making a decision on the balance between level of the negative impact and the quality / quantity of the evidence provided - in other words, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence, patterns should be shown etc.

4. In your opinion, are sitting arbitrators exempt from due process if and when they commit an indiscretion that would get a normal editor blocked or sanctioned?

   Of course not - an arbitrator should be subject to the same standards as every other editor at a minimum. Let's not forget though, with every role added on Wikipedia comes more responsibility and members of the committee have access to some of the most sensitive data there is - there are times where those responsibilities are breached. We cannot compare "whether a normal editor would be blocked or sanctioned", because a normal editor would not have had access to that information in the first place.
   For those situations, we have different procedures, such as the Ombuds Commission - a group which takes a long time and offers recommendations. I struggle with the lack of good procedures for these advanced rights, and therefore I do my best to tackle issues head on, nipping them in the bud where possible. I will talk frankly and directly to individuals where I believe colleagues have breached the standards that the community expect of them, will start internal procedures and follow them through if needed.

Thank you for your answers, WTT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Mikehawk10

2. Standards of Evidence: What standards of proof should the arbitration committee use when deciding to enact a sanction on an individual, and should these standards vary depending on the type of sanction being considered?

   Well, I'm going to preface this answer by saying that we are simply talking about a community process on a website and linking this to a legal system is something I am loathed to do as it does not reflect reality - however many do seem intent on doing so. I'm not legal expert, especially not on the US system of many different standards of proof. Here in the UK, we have two standards, one for criminal law and one for civil law and if we are going to apply a legal basis, then the latter is what we should be looking at - i.e. "more likely than not".
   Let's get back to reality though. If it was a simple decision of "evidence", then the decision wouldn't reach Arbcom. Instead, by the time we're looking at it, it's the balance of risk that we must concern ourselves with, risk to the project, risk to members of our community and as always risk is a balance of the amount of damage that could occur, the likelihood of the damage occurring. Equally, you have to look at the outcomes of action and inaction, who takes the brunt and whether they deserve it. These are all factors that should be weighed up.

4. Standards for Evidence: When the arbitration committee is presented with off-wiki evidence (such as discord logs, screenshots of emails, or text messages), what is the mechanism that you believe the arbitration committee should implement to verify that the evidence presented is truthful, and how does your vision compare and contrast with current ArbCom processes in place?

   I wish there was an easy answer to this. While on the committee, I've seen multiple instances of off-wiki evidence of problems and more than once has it been a joe jobs. When it comes down it, as per my other answer, the question is one of risk. Is it likely to be accurate? what can we do to verify the accuracy? How much damage would be done if it is accurate and we don't act? How much if it isn't and we do? They're always running through my mind.

Questions from NightHeron

2. Use of email: Should an editor's allegations against other editors be discussed in email with ArbCom members?

   I'm a little unclear about the question, so I'll answer each alternative.
   If an editor emails me directly with allegations, I would not pass that on to the rest of the committee without permission.
   Allegations made on wiki do get discussed on list as part of natural discussions.
   If an editor wishes to raise a case about another, it should be done on wiki unless there is off-wiki or private evidence.
   I haven't covered your question, please do ask a follow up!

4. Use of email: If an editor contacts you by email with some complaints or concerns that include allegations of misconduct or policy violations by other editors, and if that editor wants to discuss it with you by email without the notification or participation of the accused editors, how would you handle that?

   I would discuss via email, certainly. Indeed, I did this a lot back in the day for adoptees. A lot of discussion came around what the subject could have done differently, and what happened. I have no issue with this generally, I am a good ear when I have time. During a case is different - and based on the severity of the allegations, I might be recommending that they raise a case, take it to a board or ask for permission to pass the information on.

6. Follow-up: Thank you. At what point or under what circumstances would you not want to continue such an off-wiki discussion without hearing the other side of the story from the accused editors?

   NightHeron, I think I might be still missing your point. Are we talking about simple discussion between me and a single editor who has a grievance? I would likely continue such a discussion until it's natural end. I may well declare that conversation to other arbs / the community and even recuse from further cases depending on the circumstances. I wouldn't take action based on a conversation with only one side, so if I felt an action was necessary, I would contact the other - unsurprising as most of my actions are talking, I rarely press buttons as the solution.
   However, if you are referring to how the committee should behave, I've been focussed on the wrong point. Generally there, the committee should respond immediately with an acknowledgement - and look at the accusations. Depending on that, the group may dismiss the accusations, ask for more information, refer on wiki - all of which do not require and should not require contact with the other individual. Simply being contacted by Arbcom is not fun. If the committee is considering taking things further privately, they should contact the other side for their point of view.

Questions from George Ho

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   I was not particularly involved in the UCoC, intentionally. I'm rather jaded with respect to the Foundation, although that is not a reflection on the individuals, many of whom I've worked with directly and found to be lovely people. What they are trying to do with the UCoC is a Good Thing^TM, and I didn't want to be a grumpy old fuddy duddy standing in the way of that. What's more, I am generally happy with the way it turned out. Universal conduct is difficult because there are so many cultural differences around the world, and so many different standards in those cultures - what's come out at the end are points I agree with.
   The next step is working out who would enforce it, and that's where things get fiddly, with projects not wanted interference from the WMF or those without understanding of cultural context while equally the broader global community not wanting a single project to ignore the UCoC. There's a balancing act to find that middle ground, and there are people I trust on the drafting committees, so I'm hopeful for the future.

4. You have served as part of the ArbCom. Which ArbCom case has affected you personally as a Wikipedian?

   There have been a few which I still come back to in my mind. Two cases I was a party to raising issues about others, I can tell you were very stressful and I did not enjoy, they have certainly affected my outlook on Wikipedia, my focus on trying to meet deadlines and make proceedings less stressful for participants. Cases where I've participated less than I should have (whatever the reason), leaving my colleagues in the lurch. Cases where I've recused and watched as individuals I consider friends were put through the wringer. But, as much as there have been a number of cases that have affected me, none affected me more than the Fram case. The community was fractured, we had two dozen resignations of admins, pressure from all sides, multiple committee members had stepped down or stepped back. I did my best to get involved, to answer questions, to keep to deadlines, to meet everyone's needs and find a way to right the ship. It was the most difficult period I went through as an arbitrator and it does affect my outlook.

Questions from Nosebagbear

2. You write in your statement I am pragmatic and will focus on the best solution, not necessarily justice. What cases (and remedies/decisions within those cases) would you say have had you take solutions the furthest away from your interpretation of "justice"? Why would a just solution not have worked in those cases? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

   Don't you just love it when you put a generalisation of how you think and you get asked "ok but when has that happened specifically?". It's a good question and I have been struggling with it. "Justice" as a concept is that "people get what the deserve" and that's not what drives me on the committee. For example, I can think of multiple cases where we have focused on the mental health of an editor and allowed them to leave or stand down quietly because that was what was best for everyone, obviously I'm not going to give examples.
   You asked specifically about cases though - cases which focus on a content are rarely about justice. They're about finding some way for the community to be able to manage collaborative editing. The goal is different, justice may happen, but it shouldn't be the focus. I hope that answers your question.

3. Followup to Q1 (thus, perhaps Q1.1?): your answer mostly noted cases where individuals who might be otherwise sanctioned being able to leave calmly, or content cases. Are you aware of instances where an individual was sanctioned (or sanctioned more harshly) for the need of a practical outcome (perhaps in one of those colloborative editing cases, or not), than a pure "justice" position would have led to?

   Not off the top of my head. There have been a couple of cases recently where I disagreed with the outcome, believing the committee should have been less harsh - but subsequently, the behaviour of the subject has shown the committee as a whole right, and me wrong. Now, there is a possibility that the actions of the committee were a factor in the subsequent behaviour, but that's a philosophical rabbit hole. There's an argument that the WP:Super Mario effect is an area where the "victims" of one with advanced permissions do not get the justice that they deserve - but that would be going the other direction.

5. Question 2: I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   Thanks for the nudge on this Nosebagbear, I had missed it. I've always been quite wary of "Duck" blocks, which are predicated on WP:DUCK, an essay. Effectively, we're saying it should be obvious that user A and user B are related, so much so that we do not need any technical information - and, yes, I can accept that. Indeed, the example given there is excellent, a user is in a heated debate, blocked and then a different user carries on the debate in exactly the same tone immediately after, clear and obvious. If that was the extent of "Duck" blocks, the clear and obvious to anyone, then I don't think we'd have a problem. Things start to slide however, from obvious to anyone to obvious to the admin who makes the block. That's less good, but still acceptable, as the admin should be accountable and should be able to explain why it is obvious upon questioning. Then, we have the "BEANS" factor (Which doesn't match the BEANS essay), where we don't want to give away too much info, making them harder to spot, and we get in a muddle
   But I'm rambling and you had specific questions. 1) No, I don't believe there is a policy backing for not sharing public information. I understand the feeling behind it - that we don't want to make it easier for the person to sock in future, and they're a sock anyway so what do they matter and all sorts of handwavy thoughts like that. But, as you say it equally puts people in an impossible situation and if they're not guilty then they have few options.
   2) The worst cases we're talking about are down to, for want of a better term, laziness. It requires effort to put together the explanation, and the benefit to the accuser is little when they can just block and ignore - that's not justifiable. At the other end of the spectrum, the obvious cases are fully justifiable, we should not be wasting our time when things are completely obvious. Nor should we be spending time on those individuals who are only here to harass others.
   3) I don't believe you need to be an expert to appeal a 'Duck' block well. If you are honest about what you are doing and why, then the reviewing admin can use their judgement to see how plausible that is, weighed up against the "duck" evidence, which as I say above, should be available.
   4) I'm not sure I agree with that. Perhaps it encourages actual socking, as it may be easier to create a new account than persuade, but I don't think there's a simple lie that would lead to an unblock, and admitting socking when you did not does not lead to unblocks.

Questions from 1233

Below are my two questions. I plan on asking one (and only one) follow up question.--1233 ( T / C） 04:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

2. You consider yourself having been upset someone along the way for your focus on the best solution. How would you reflect on those cases, especially as a solution-based person. Do you think your focus on solution may sometimes create more problems? If yes, then how do you remedy that?

   You can't please everyone all of the time, and with many solutions, someone gets hurt. I have often reflected on times where I've hurt someone and when they have gone on to criticise me, to see if there was another way to handle it. Sometimes, I have seen better solutions in hindsight and work to incorporate those into my work going forward. Other times, I cannot, and therefore I must accept that some people will simply dislike me.
   There are times where the solution may cause more problems, and that should certainly be considered. If there is no net benefit, then why are we doing it. However, there are situations where a solution which will cause more problems is the right thing to do, like letting the community know about a problem internally. Yes, it may cause problems, it may cause awkward questions - but it still needs to happen.

4. Consider my home wiki as en but my most active wiki on zh, can you please comment, with reference to the September Office Actions on zhwp, on how ArbCom can effectively retain the right to self governance through local interference? (i.e. How work from ArbCom work prevent office actions from being implemented apart from law requirements (DMCA notices) through proactive interference on local issues)

   The issues on zh are certainly troubling, but the external forces are multiple and reach into the Chinese government as well as from the WMF. It's a very different situation from en.wp
   But, to answer your question, I believe there is a need for office actions - to protect community members from individuals who would cause harm. I was there, agitating for some of those earliest office bans and have given positive and negative feedback about more recent cases - it would be hypocritical of me to say that WMF should never interfere. The committee has a much better relationship with T&S these days, through the hard work of people like Maggie, Joe and Jacob, who have consistently been available for meetings and open with us about cases and given advice. There does feel like a genuine attempt to bridge the divide between the community and the WMF and for that, those individuals have my thanks.
   On the flip side, there is the issue of governance, and where the line is drawn. There are things that the community manages better, and the Foundation does not have the resources to manage. I'm glad to say that the relationship we have with those individuals has allowed us to say things like "it would be better if you didn't handle that in that way", or suggesting that certain issues could be passed to VRT.
   Long and short, WMF owns the site, but it wouldn't work without the community. Digging heels in on either side and insisting the other does, or doesn't do, something is only going to lead to more problems. Working together can lead to solutions.

6. Follow up on question 2: Are there some examples, from your past work, that shows that ArbCom can effectively retain the right to self governance? (That's the part of question 2 that seems to be unanswered, I'm not justifying office actions, but I would like to ask how you see ArbCom as a tool to reduce direct interference).

   We have no right to self governance, indeed, we have few rights on this site at all - as a community we have formed norms and values and a set of governance, but we don't have a right to any of it. If the Foundation shut the site down tomorrow or booted off the entire userbase, there is little we could about it. The content is freely licenced, we could move somewhere else and start again. We could see if there was any civil recourse, I suppose, but I wouldn't want to be part of that - overall the idea of a right to self governance under with these sorts of restrictions doesn't make sense.
   What we can do is show that self-governance is the best option. That the community can manage itself, that we consistently make considered decisions, weighing up the same factors that a different governance group would. I believe the committee does that in every decision it makes, every statement it puts out. Do I have more specific examples of ensuring our self-governance? Necessarily not, as many of the specific examples I've alluded to in my previous answer, much has happened off-wiki in calls, working as a team with the Foundation rather than against them, and being able to make actual suggestions which can be picked up.
   Thinking further, there is one set of examples that I have been involved with, and that would be statements issued by the committee. They should be few and far between as it's not something that the committee is really tasked with - however, when the committee is willing to stand together behind a statement, it has a strong effect - so a specific example that was visible to the community would be the committee's Open letter to the board in light of the Fram's ban.

Question from TheresNoTime

2. Hi Dave, thank for standing for re-election. What do you think we should do if no one else puts themselves forward as a candidate? :-)

   They will - it happens every year, and there's always a lot of stress over it. I've said on my talk page, I don't hold with it, I've had long enough to make up my mind on whether to run and it's not contingent on others running - but there you go. What do I think we should do without any other candidates? That's easy enough. Disband the committee (or start the countdown to disband it at the end of next year). The community deals with most content things these days. Functionaries can take over CU/OS appointments and private information. The world would turn without Arbcom, as would the Wikipedia globe.

4. (Thank you for your previous answer) In your opinion, what is the Arbitration Committee's core purpose?

   That's a surprisingly difficult question, TNT. I could answer "what's the point of Arbcom" easily enough. It's there to make final binding decisions on issues that the community can't handle, it's there to appoint CU/OS and review any of their decisions that need reviewing and finally it's there to look after those mucky bits that the community shouldn't have to worry about. What's the core purpose, though? I'd say it's "to handle the stuff that the community, for whatever reason, can't or won't". (I realise that there's a contradiction between the two answers - "Can" is a very awkward word. Perhaps "won't" would be better... I'll add that)

Question from Banedon

2. You wrote above and in your statement that 1) I am pragmatic and will focus on the best solution, not necessarily justice as well as 2) we are simply talking about a community process on a website and linking this to a legal system is something I am loathed to do as it does not reflect reality, both positions that run directly contrary to a thread I started on WT:ARBCOM recently [1]. Did you intentionally do this? If yes, are you indirectly suggesting that I stand as a candidate to oppose you?

   Hi Banedon. No, I was not referencing that thread - it was not in my mind when I wrote either of those two statements. I speak about pragmatism regularly, indeed I believe I used the word twice in my response to your question 2 years ago, similarly you will find my general rule of "it's just a website" on that page too. These are long term views that I trot out regularly, and I believe I put forward in that thread too as part of my point.
   As for standing as a candidate, I would welcome that. The committee should be made up of individuals from across Wikipedia, and of individuals who are willing to speak their mind, weigh up arguments and make a decision based upon those arguments. Nothing in there about agreeing with me! I believe I've disagreed with most, if not all, of the arbitrators over the years - but I don't consider that a bad thing!

Questions from Sdrqaz

2. When accepting cases regarding administrative conduct, an oft-used qualifier is that opening a case does not mean sanctions are inevitable. However, historically, that has not been the case. What are your thoughts on the Committee's approach to desysop cases?

   Desysop cases are difficult, because Arbcom is the only place where a desysop for cause can currently play out. However, a desysop for cause is an unpleasant experience for the individual in question (I've spoken before about disciplinary procedures, HR, and whether it should all be public facing), so committee members are rightly hesitant to take on such cases. In those cases where it is clear that we should not be hesitant, it's quite likely that the right outcome is a desysop. That combined with the high standards we have for admins, and the low likelihood of someone putting in the effort to bring a case makes it far more common for cases that actually occur to end up with sanctions.
   What are the alternatives? We could accept a more cases, lowering the standards for acceptance, leading to more cases where no sanctions take place - and use far more of the communities time. Is that a good thing? I don't believe so. What about a private "disciplinary" system? Well, it would have positives, but "desysoped by star chamber" would not go down well with our community. I had hoped to bring in regular reviews of all admins, but the community weren't up for that. There's a good idea in the current RfA Review, taking the "personal" out of admin reviews, which I hope will help the wider issues.
   Overall, I've considered quite a few desysop routes, I do think that the committee's current route is working. There is potential for improvement, but I'd like to see an alternative as a priority.

4. Of the decisions taken this year by the Committee, which one did you disagree with the most? Please note that may include choices not to take actions and simple inaction where you felt the Committee should have done so.

   Most of this year's Arbcom stuff has been fairly reasonable, I'd not go so far as to strongly disagree with any. With hindsight, I may have made a different decision, delayed the Flyer22 / Wandering Wanda case a week or two at the beginning of the year, or maybe even accepted the Article Rescue Squadron one at the end (as things are still bubbling there), but I can't say I actively disagreed with anything during the year. The only place I really see myself at odds with the committee decision was on the Supreme Deliciousness ban on the Kurds and Kurdistan case, but I came to voting a little late and there was already consensus against. I was wavering myself, so simply abstained. Whether or not I should have done something different, time will tell.

WMF Banned User

Questions from Horizons of Happy Do you think Wikipedia needs a more restrictive and specific policy that prevents Administrators (or even ArbCom) from funnelling aggrieved users into non-public or limited audience avenues of appeal except when strictly absolutely necessary? What might such a policy look like, in your view? Horizon of Happy (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Although there are situations when individuals are forced to appeal in "limited audience" routes, these are not the norm. They are reserved for those who are looking to use their talkpage for purposes other than appealing their blocks, be it making unhelpful comments about their block, other editors or what not, or as a place to air their views on subjects. Should we be letting individuals vent on talk pages when blocked? Well, you won't find me removing talk page access unless it's absolutely necessary, but I also don't believe there is anything wrong with doing so in the circumstances I have just described. So, no, I don't believe Wikipedia needs such a policy, which would do far more harm than good.

Questions from Cwmhiraeth

2. As a former member of ArbCom, did you ever take part in a case in which you probably should have recused yourself?

   Not that I can recall, I generally err on the side of recusing too easily rather than the other way around. Where I see a possible recusal issue, especially one of optics, I raise it with the committee to get their opinions on the matter. Interestingly, I've had more trouble finding the balance on recusal around my 'crat hat, where I've commented in chats as an individual. It appears that the standards for recusal amongst crats have tightened over the years to be closer to that of Arbcom (it wasn't that long ago that those who voted in an RfA could also participate in the crat chat).

Question from wbm1058

2. Should ArbCom-appointed checkusers be allowed to unilaterally tag a user as a likely sockpuppet of another user, point to the (perhaps years-old) sockpuppet investigation of the alleged sockpuppeteer, and then block the accused new user based on only behavioral evidence (i.e. with non-confirming technical evidence), without first conducting a community examination of the alleged behavioral connection and gaining a community consensus to block? Indeed, per this example, "Undid revision 1055911694 by xxxxx leave this for User:yyyy" the impression given by that edit summary is that the decision is only to be made by the accusing checkuser admin – who has yet to open a formal discussion on the matter. Are you OK with that?

   This is clearly related to the latest election drama, which I believe the the election coordinators have managed well. But since I'm a candidate in said election, I'll only speak to general cases, with my general opinion.
   Checkuser is a tool which has its place, it can expose farms of sockpuppets, sleepers and so on. However, it is not magical and easy enough to manipulate. Therefore, we expect our checkusers to consider information such as behavioural evidence and private evidence. Where private evidence has been used (be it through the checkuser tool or other means), we expect it to be clearly noted by the checkuser, and we expect other users to respect that they should not make decisions as they do not have access to the full information. This is true even if they are given access to some private information, as the CU may still have more. However, if the checkuser has not marked it thus, it should be available for any other editor to be involved. There's no ownership on Wikipedia, we're all part of a great big group working together.
   Now, in this specific case, which I'm not going to go too far into because of the location of the issue, I will point out that you may have a missed out a crucial point, who the block was by and what it was for. You may also wish to double check the order things happened. Am I ok with how things have gone down? No, I have a few issues, but ACE always throws up this sort of thing, because everyone is on edge, people are trying to manipulate the system, and so on. I'm hoping things will all settle in a couple of weeks.

Questions from A7V2

2. As a hypothetical, suppose two otherwise very positive content editors are simply unable to get along (with the associated disruptions to discussions, etc), and arbcom ultimately imposes a mutual IBAN on them. One of the editors subsequently finds the restriction too restrictive and stops editing. Was the sanction a net positive for Wikipedia?

   Hypotheticals differ massively from real life, because they miss out so much context. I'm glad you have the words "Arbcom ultimately... " in there, as I can infer that whatever has been happening has been causing disruption for a long time and the community has not been able to deal with it. In addition, we have a mutual IBAN as the only sanction - which I believe to be one of the most lenient restrictions, and should not carry a stigma (it is true some people just do not get along)
   So in this scenario - we have to weight up the loss a very positive content editor against the long period of community disruption, which will add to a long term malaise of the community, which massively impacts volunteer retention. It's often hard to see the long term damage that disputes can cause and easy to see the loss of that one individual. I don't like the terms "net positive" or "net negative", because I don't think you can sum up people like that - but I will say that losing a very positive content editor is always a blow, even if it is a necessary one.

4. In general, should editor retention be a factor when deciding on sanctions? Should the type of editor (in a broad sense) and type of contributions they make matter in this regard?

   It does factor in - of course it does. The committee is designed to be the final port of call for disputes - and if we wanted to be properly final, we'd just ban everyone or some other massively disproportionate response. Instead, we want to keep editors, both those currently active and those who may join in the future. We must consider why the dispute has reached the state that it has, whether individuals are likely to carry on as they are, and what measures we can put in place to help them correct their course, thereby helping the entire community. Does that directly translate into simple boxes of "this editor has written 5 FAs and is therefore more valuable than this editor who has held adminship for 3 years" or anything like that? No - not directly. But past behaviour must be a factor in our decisions, otherwise the cycle will repeat.

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Kolya Butternut

2. An SPI on Daner's Creek was opened this year in connection to an arb announcement, Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen. An investigation into one of the potential socks was declined as stale. Do you think it's important to investigate old sockpuppets so that others may recognize the patterns of new sockpuppets of actively socking users?

   Hi Kolya Butternut. I'm not sure what you're looking for out of this question - you have been agitating on the topic for too long and have been warned to either stick within community norms or step away. But I have a personal policy of being open to questions around this time, so I will answer your direct question without addressing the rest of the issues further.
   Investigating a potential sockpuppet that made 30 odd edits in one day nearly a year ago is a waste of community time. The lack of edits and stale nature of the technical data make it impossible to confirm the likelihood to any degree of accuracy and therefore any future patterns extrapolated from that investigation could taint future investigations. So, no, I don't believe it is important to in this particular situation.
   I'd go further too and repeat something I said elsewhere - Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia for "anyone" to edit. As long as that's the base position, and obfuscation of data is so simple, I do not see the benefits of chasing sockpuppets. Put another way, if your mindset is "I must stop this person editing Wikipedia", you are going to have a hard time. If you mindset is "This person is damaging Wikipedia in such and such a way", then things become clearer. Spending time looking into ... old sockpuppets so that others may recognize the patterns of new sockpuppets falls squarely in the "I must stop this person editing Wikipedia" side of things, and therefore wastes community time and resources.

I'm confused about why this question is not seen as within community norms. This is connected to a case which I was involved in, so candidates' responses to this question will help to inform my vote, unlike the answers to topics I am unfamiliar with. I am not particularly concerned if this person continues to edit Wikipedia at this point (when the edits are constructive, as opposed to !voting in RFCs for example); I see socks that pop up as similar to an article on my watchlist that has bugs. I am concerned, however, that this topic seems to be treated differently than any other potential LTA. I think that documenting a stale sock on an SPI page is helpful, if not for behavioral evidence than as a history of socking timelines. Beeblebrox's comment was I fail to see any point to an investigation of any kind. I would expect at least a five minute lookover. As a followup, do you feel that documenting a stale sock on the SPI page of a potential LTA is helpful? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Much of what is informing my opinion of "not within community norms" is historical, so I won't go further into that now. Regarding your direct question - I'm all for documentation - adding the stale potential sock to the SPI page is a useful thing to do for a number of reasons.

1. It can show the pattern of socking, if future socks are discovered.
2. It can show the potential extent of socking.
3. It shows what similarities have been found and the result given. In this case the result is "May or may not be accurate, not worth further investigation".
4. It can show who has been doing the investigation, what level of investigation they have put and what level of interest they have.

I saw absolutely no issue with you filing that report, that action was a good one. I also see no problem with the outcome of "stale, nothing more to do". Worm^TT(talk) 12:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Epiphyllumlover

2. There is an active and routine off-wiki freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki. I have watched this corrupt discussions on enwiki, but would feel guilty reporting it, since I know that the editors actually making the comments really need the money. In addition, I feel that editors from the non-English speaking countries have the potential to contribute more to Wikipedia-- but fall into selling votes because it is both lucrative and requires little understanding of wiki code. It would be a shame to drive them away, given the great potential which would be lost. Would you support a WMF-funded bounty program modeled after the Nordic model approach to prostitution, where the editors from non-English speaking countries could receive a financial bounty for turning in their employers to ArbCom for discipline, while at the same time also be offered access to an exclusive Wiki syntax training program so they can build skills to pursue greater things?

   Subverting our consensus model is, in my view, one of the most problematic behaviours that can be shown on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not focus on expertise, but instead on consensus of arguments - with it, we have proven ourselves to be something special and it is therefore the core of what is great in Wikipedia.
   So with that in mind, how do we deal with such problems. I will say that I think that the Nordic model is the right model for dealing with prostitution, but I'm not sure that it translates to the solution you put forward. I'm especially hesitant to the "financial bounty" route. The moment you put money into the model, you put a numerical value on functions and risks massive damage to the encyclopedia. I've said multiple times, I'm willing to volunteer my time for nothing, but the amount that I expect to be paid for the same - Wikipedia wouldn't (or shouldn't) be able to afford me. I would expect that if there is a bounty put forward, it would be open to manipulation by those who would want to grab the money and would not have the desired effect because those who wish to subvert the encyclopedia would be able to afford to beat the bounty. On the financial aspect alone - I could not support your solution.
   The rest, though, is admirable - the hope to bring the editors into the fold, the training etc, all good. I'm not sure where "Arbcom for discipline" would work, because our jurisdiction is on en.wp, and this would be a larger issue across projects - and so I would be expecting a larger solution. We are, of course, on a hypothetical here as I've no details.
   Finally, I will end on one point - You are right, people need money to live and we should consider that - in addition, it is understandable that people would want to make money through something they are interested in or passionate about. However, there are many ways to make money, and as I said at the top, this way of making money does significant damage to the encyclopedia for everyone, including themselves. It needs to stop.

Question from Hijiri88

2. What is your stance on two-way IBANs that are imposed because of one-way harassment? In the past, ArbCom has rejected one-way IBAN proposals in favour of two-way IBANs on purely technical grounds (that they are subject to being gamed, that they "don't work", etc.), but if such a one-way IBAN is implemented and it doesn't stem disruption (for example, if the hounded party is simultaneously placed under a TBAN that is not placed on the hounding party), and instead only leaves the harassed party subject to repeated remarks of "User X is subject to an IBAN with User Y -- he wouldn't be banned if he hadn't done something wrong" and unable to explain the context, would you be open to repealing it? (I am assuming that BANEX applies to these questions.)

   I am not a fan of one way interaction bans - I think it's rare that they are the best solution and would almost always prefer two-way. I've said above that I believe that a standard interaction ban should not carry stigma, should not follow "he must have done something wrong" remarks and so on. However, I do appreciate that it does happen. That being said, one-way harassment is exactly the sort of reason that a one-way interaction ban should be put in place, though if harassment is occurring a block/ban should also be the go-to option depending on the severity.
   Regarding your hypotheticals (as I am not looking up any specifics) - if a historical two way interaction ban was chosen simply for technical reasons (where today a one-way interaction ban would be chosen) and implemented by the committee - especially if the circumstances are recorded in the case, that should be looked at with an ARCA with a view to changing the remedy. If a 1 way interaction ban is applied in the opposite direction of the harassment, that should be repealed, and I would again recommend that it went through an ARCA. Again, based on the information given, as I am not putting context to these questions.

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position now that we've had some rather involved discussions about DS amendments and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which was put on the back burner in 2021?

   Discretionary sanctions aren't perfect. I was on the committee during the last review, and I fully support the arbitrators who are focussed on the current one. It's not surprising that the review takes multiple years as it is such a widely encompassing area with so many individuals who have an opinion on how it should be improved. So, I fully support the hard work done by those committee members who have pushed forward with this year's review and look forward to seeing what they put forward next year. I will fully admit that I don't have the focus to lead such a review myself, but I will make time to participate as it goes along.
   As for my general position - I think DS are a necessary evil. I'd rather we didn't have to use them on the encyclopedia, but where we have significant disruption, giving administrators that extra "power" is an excellent way to manage those areas. At the same time though, we must be fair to the editors who are working in those areas, they need to be aware that rules are slightly different there. It's a difficult area to find the right answer, and I think that area definitely will need to be work in that are.
   I know you mention "irreversible unilateral actions", which is rather the point of DS, most of Wikipedia runs on WP:BRD, once an action is reverted, it consensus is then formed. DS shifts that to make the decision binding, and that's a reason we should use DS as little as possible. Does it make DS too powerful? Quite possibly, and perhaps we should introduce better modification / removal processes. Equally, we don't want to make the system too complex and stop editors / admins from using it, leaving us back in the mire of problems again. Much to consider, much to improve.

Question from Robert McClenon

2. Some of the most troublesome disputes in Wikipedia are protracted content disputes that are complicated by conduct issues, such as incivility, civil POV pushing, stonewalling, and filibustering. These disputes often go to WP:ANI more than once. This is a two-part question, and maybe will be considered to be one question or two. First, how should ArbCom decide when it is necessary to accept a case that is a combination content-conduct dispute? Second, there are relatively few available mechanisms for dealing with such protracted cases short of conduct adjudication (WP:ANI, Arbitration Enforcement, or an arbitration case). Third Opinion is for straightforward cases with two editors. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is normally for relatively simple disputes that will take two or three weeks to resolve. Do you have any ideas for how to try to resolve protracted content-conduct disputes to minimize their division of the community before arbitration is sought?

   The community has got so much better at managing these sorts of disputes, which is why Arbcom gets so few cases, and Medcom no longer exists. Between solutions put forward at noticeboards, such as Community endorsed general sanctions or RfCs, or more complex discussions at DRN, I do believe the community has the ability to resolve the vast majority of complicated conduct/content disputes. But, as to your questions
   Arbcom should, as a rule, focus on the conduct and do it's best to stay away from content - the encyclopedia would be a poorer place if the content was decided by a non-expert committee like Arbcom. However, sometimes conduct and content are so intertwined that one must be considered alongside the other. In those cases, as with all cases, the decision on whether to accept should be based on whether the community would be able to handle matters without Arbcom intervention. I don't have recommendations for how to resolve protracted content-conduct cases, much of what I wrote a decade ago is still relevant. I'd probably add WP:AN / WP:ANI as a step too as I think more things are actually solved there than they used to.