v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2020 candidate: CaptainEek Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

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.

Questions from George Ho

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

   I think its good that the WMF shows they care about harassment. I think its bad that the WMF seems to care less about what the community thinks about it, and that the UCoC will apparently be implemented regardless of what the community thinks of it. But overall, the UCoC is not much different from what we already have. It mandates civility, encourages good faith, and bans harassment, trolling, and vandalism. At least here on the English Wikipedia, I do not think it will cause significant problems. In part, it seems aimed more at fixing issues in IRL meetings and in projects that do not have as structured of conduct requirements as ENWP. However, it is another example of the foundation not really engaging with the community (a la the branding proposal) or understanding how to engage, which is something I think ArbCom can have a role in fixing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Which ArbCom cases have affected you the most personally as a Wikipedian, even when you agree or disagree with the decisions made, and why?

   I have had the good fortune and good wits to not be involved in any ArbCom cases over the years, with the exception of my current request to hear the "Elements" case. As no decisions have come out of the "Elements" case yet, I cannot hardly comment on them :) Otherwise, I have not been personally affected by a case, beyond the byzantine DS regime, which I have to navigate as an editor. As I interact with DS regularly, I find them aggravating and confusing, and wish they were more streamlined. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Gerda

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

   Having helped close a contentious infobox RfC earlier this year [1], I don't think the struggles about infoboxes are truly over. But I do think the fierce and vitriolic "infobox wars" are over. Infoboxes are here to stay, and editors have been using civil discussion to solve infobox issues for some years. It has been more than seven years since that case, and the case was only revisited in 2015 to loosen some editing restrictions. So yes, I do agree that since then, the restrictions appear to have worked, and that as Voceditenore says "general attitude from both perspectives seems to have settled on live and let live". There may be some exceptions to that rule, but I have not personally seen them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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) 01:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   Members should thoroughly investigate all claims and go beyond evidence presented. We are not restricted like a court is, and for good reason. A court of law prevents certain kinds of evidence because they aren't trustworthy. But because every edit on Wikipedia is saved, that evidence is always trustworthy. I think Arbs are best served by examining all aspects of a case in great depth, including searching out other evidence if necessary. Off-wiki evidence of course requires a more judicious hand, as that can be questionable at times. But I think that relevant cases (say about a paid editor with off-wiki profiles) present a need to search out and verify off-wiki evidence in a full and creative fashion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 07:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Wikipedia's drama board at WP:ANI is open to comment by any and all users. This could possibly affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even reveal a consensus that might not always be the most equitable. On Arbcom cases participation (sometimes throw-away comments) from uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also colour the objectivity of members of the Committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. My question is: In your opinion, how valid is such participation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   If people wish to chime in as uninvolved parties I see no reason they shouldn't. They often provide useful perspectives that haven't been considered, and can be invaluable. Plus, it is the job of Arbs to sift through a great deal of quite adversarial comments and render a sound judgement, so I don't fear that external participation will unfairly sway Arbs. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 07:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

CaptainEek: Thank you for your candid answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Newslinger

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

   I don't think there is one hard and fast line. But I can provide a few possibilities. On the simple side, if the discussion has broken down into personal attacks/is focusing on the creator instead of the content, or is resulting in edit warring, that's a conduct issue. But rarely does ArbCom deal with such clearcut issues. A more likely scenario is where participants are bludgeoning others, by trying to press for their POV until the other gives up. ArbCom has dealt a great deal with editors who refuse to drop the stick or have engaged in long term, low level, disruption. Persistence is a positive trait, but being persistent to the point of disruption is definitely a conduct issue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 07:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Calidum

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

   I quite agree with the findings and have long thought that we don't deal with unblockables well enough. I think if we discipline our unblockables better, they will behave better. Somewhat like training a dog: if you always let the dog up on the table, the dog will think its okay to get on the table. But if you tell the dog no, and then squirt them with water when they don't listen, they mind much better.

   The recommendations of the RfC include 1) stricter enforcements of final warnings, which I think ArbCom should use amply. ArbCom need not always block people, but when they give final warnings, they should have teeth, and should be easily enforceable at AE.

   2) "Blocks should be handed out more frequently, but only as short-term blocks" I agree. I think that we might need to revisit our blocking policy to implement this however, but agree that short blocks for disruption should be more frequent. This is the "squirt the dog with water" approach.

   3) ArbCom ought look at cases that have been to ANI a lot/lengthy block logs: yes and yes. If something has been to ANI multiple times and not been solved, that means it is beyond the ability of the community for whatever reason, and thats why ArbCom exists. I think ArbCom could occasionally hold "original jurisdiction" cases, i.e. initiated by Arbs. But I think we need to make ArbCom more user friendly so that folks are willing to bring disputes to ArbCom. Take the Elements case request: the involved parties were told multiple times to take it to ArbCom, but their fear of ArbCom meant that they just kept squabbling among themselves. We need to make ArbCom less scary if we are to get more people to present cases.

   4) More admin cases should be brought before ArbCom: Admins should be held to the very highest standards of Wikipedia. Admins who can skirt the rules or be abrasive do us a disservice and scare away editors. On bringing more cases? I echo my answer to 3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 08:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

   To be honest, I hadn't seriously thought about running until the last day. However, a good friend urged me to do so at the last moment, and their vote of confidence made up my mind. I had imagined that most of the committee would run again, and there would be very few seriously contested seats. But since that is not the case, I realized that running was more important than I had thought. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 08:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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) reply

   The WMF's stance on systemic racism has zero impact on content decisions. Maher making a claim that there is no neutral stance has nothing to do with NPOV. The WMF doesn't control content. NPOV will continue to stand no matter what, as it is our central mission. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 07:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. There is at least a perception of left-wing bias on Wikipedia, both regarding content and internally (for context see [2]. One of the examples given is that for matters relating to Donald Trump, the 2016 US election and Brett Kavanaugh, editors making broadly "pro-Trump" edits were disciplined 6 times more than those making broadly "anti-Trump" edits, but this is not to say this was or wasn't justified). Do you believe this perception to be true, and whether you believe it is true or not, what, if anything, should be done to address it? A7V2 ( talk) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   Wikipedia has a lot of biases. We have a racial and gender bias in both our content and contributors. We have a bias towards recentism. In part, our biases reflect our sources. But I chafe at the notion that we have a liberal political bias independent of our sources. I say liberalism as distinguished from Left-wing politics, as there is an important difference here: we almost certainly don't have a left wing bias. The idea that Wikipedia is some evil leftist plot is chiefly because of ultra-conservative outlets like Breitbart who make a trade in bashing Wikipedia.

   The idea that Wikipedia is too liberal is rooted in a very United States-centric perspective. In parts of Europe, which is much more liberal than the US, I suspect that Wikipedia is considered much more neutral. The US has been so conservative for so long that we now consider a centrist position to be a liberal position. I do not think Wikipedia is perfect in its political coverage, and think that we have a lot of instances where we aren't neutral. But I do not see the claimed systemic liberal or leftist bias. In terms of "pro-trump" editors getting sanctioned more, I think this represents a sad reality: there are a lot more trolls on the right ("trolling the libt***s" has sadly become a standard tactic), and many of those on the far-right who are looking to change Wikipedia to their needs are unwilling to get along in our collegial environment.

   So should ArbCom get involved in fixing political bias? Unless some case were brought, no. The existing WP:AP2 sanctions seem to be working well to prevent disruption. And even if some case about leftist bias were brought, I think such a case would struggle to show that there actually is a real bias and not just a perceived one. I think trying to mandate some false political balance would be a foolish errand on ArbCom's part. At the end of the day, any political bias must be fixed by our editors, working together, building consensus. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 07:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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: [3], UK: [4], Canada: [5] [6]) 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?

   Certainly. Wikipedia has a lot of biases, and although ArbCom cannot singlehandedly solve them, it can be sensitive to those biases. We still have far more articles about men than women, far more articles about white folks than non-white folks, a paltry handful of articles about LGBTQ folks. Those biases are reflected in our contributors too. In tackling cases, ArbCom should always be considering how to make Wikipedia a more inclusive and welcoming environment. And I don't just mean offering lip service. Lets look at gender issues. The GamerGate case was important in preventing the worst harassment. But as a number of harassment issues have shown, minorities in the community still face an undue burden. I mean, heck, I clearly state on my bio that I use they/them pronouns, but everyone assumes "Captain" = male. That's definitely a minor issue, but its indicative of a wider problem. Last year at WikiConNA I spoke to several folks who had experienced harassment, and had felt abandoned by administrators who ignored their pleas, and felt that going to ArbCom would just be a dramatic sham. When dealing with harassment, and systemic issues, we need to believe people when they say there is a problem. The burden of proof shouldn't be on the oppressed to show that they are oppressed, and ArbCom can actively work to fix that in its cases. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. The role of CheckUser and Oversight are given to every arbitrator on request. CheckUser regularly requires experience to interpret results. Given you have a vote in how proceedings involving the overturning of checkuser blocks, the enforcement of the CU/OS policies including the privacy policy, and the appointment of new functionaries, how does your experience show that you can place independent thought into such decisions? I'm not asking about how you defer to others as that is not showing independent discretion and thought. (Cases relevant: {{ checkuserblock-account}} blocks where the behavior doesn't match but technical evidence does, accusations of violations of the privacy policies by two former functionaries, and the lack of appropriate staffing of venues - OTRS oversight, checkuser and paid editing queues, ACC CheckUser queue, and IRC Checkuser and oversight requests)

   Every case is unique of course. Working SPI cases has shown me that its a tricky experience, and even several checkusers and admins can all have different opinions. When you have technical evidence that matches, but behavioral evidence that doesn't, you sometimes have to go with your gut instinct. Our best LTA's certainly know how to use different personas and troll us. But by that same token, sometimes two folks are editing from the same WiFi network and aren't socks. Its a case by case basis. In terms of using the CU tools, I realize that a great deal of learning goes into them, and I think at first I would be quite cautious about interpreting their results, and hope to be mentored in their use significantly.

   Violations of the privacy policy are serious, and must be treated with the utmost investigation. Such cases are hardly clearcut, and I imagine I would have to use significant judgement and possible off-wiki research. The closest experience I can compare to is sussing out paid editors. Finding a paid editor can require a lot of research, and you don't want to wrongfully block someone. It also requires being careful not to out people while still protecting the encyclopedia.

   You also mention queues being backlogged. I'm not as sure what you mean here, but as an Arb I would be quite willing to help tackle those backlogs, as I already regularly work the OTRS queues and like reducing those backlogs whenever I can. I also would be eager to appoint new functionaries, but quite cautious and careful in their selection. The functionaries hold our most powerful tools, which is a great boon, but can also be grossly misused in the wrong hands. I understand the sheer caution required, and can guarantee that I will think independently of the other Arbs on this matter, and all other matters. While I would appreciate the opinion of the other Arbs, I have no desire to fall prey to ArbCom "groupthink" and will actively try to avoid it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from ProcrastinatingReader

2. In your statement you mention discretionary sanctions is problematic. What primary issues do you believe the system has, and, if elected, specifically how would you go about resolving them?

   I'm heartened to see so many candidates concerned about DS this year, and I hope to work with some of them if elected. The current issue is that the DS system is byzantine, and hard to enforce and understand. Regular users have a hard time understanding the complexities of it. Even I, an admin, prefer to not do WP:AE because its rulebook is so complex and technical. The main problem is that what restrictions an article has is...discretionary. I understand that this gives admins the ability to tailor pages to fit the situation. But this means that you always have to check and see exactly what restrictions a page has. Which for me, results in "assume all pages in a conflict area have the maximum restrictions". To my mind, that means that we should standardize the DS restrictions. Now, exactly what that would look like I'm not quite sure, and I would work with the committee on that. But there needs to be less variation in DS so that it is easier to enforce and easier to understand. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 19:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   Thanks for your answer! Just to confirm, as page restrictions is only a portion of DS, do you think it's mainly just page restrictions that are problematic or are there other parts of it as well? And relating to your answer on page restrictions, could you elaborate on that slightly? Do you mean standardising common page restrictions to be active on all pages across a topic area, like what ARBPIA does, so all pages in the topic area have restrictions?

   @ ProcrastinatingReader: I don't claim to have the answer yet, clearly any reform of DS is going to be a group effort with likely a good degree of community consultation. But I do think that standardizing the DS is part of the solution, like as you mention for ARBPIA. Instead of endless permutations of different sanctions that can be applied, I think having a select few set levels of sanctions will be easier to understand and manage. Its more than just the page restrictions: its the complexity of the whole system that doesn't work. Look at how we sanction editors: its...pretty arbitrary. Now, in some cases that is a good thing, it gives admins leeway to make good decisions. But I have heard a lot of editors complain that they think AE is unfair. Before ArbCom takes action to reform DS, I would like to have the community chime in. I know I and several other candidates have a lot of ideas, but I want to know what editors at large think first. If elected, I would then use that feedback to help develop DS reforms that make it easier to use, less complex, and more equitable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Clayoquot

2. In your RFA last May, in response to concerns about how you had declined good content at AfC, you said, Regardless of outcome I will definitely go through my old AfC's to search for past issues. Can you tell us which old AfCs you looked at after the RfA, and whether in this process you changed your mind about any of them? 

   Thank you for asking this Clayoquot. In my RfA I realized that my approach to AfC was too "decline-ist", and since then I've realized that this is a larger problem. I have been far more lenient with my accepts since then, realizing that it is better to accept an article and have it AfD'd then to decline a good article. I am also pushing to reform the AfC culture in general, as it's standards have become too high. The standard seems to be that articles need to be C class to get accepted, which ignores the fact that the only real thing AfC should be doing is making some minimum guarantee of notability and filtering out spam/garbage.

   After my RfA, I did go back and look at old drafts, and did provide some additional feedback, but I didn't actually reverse course on any decisions. But you've prompted me to go back and look at all the deleted drafts I have ever contributed to. I went through hundreds of deleted drafts this morning and did not find any decisions I thought were certainly wrong. I did rescue a few pages, such as Knockoneil river (made into a redirect), Danish collaborator trials and found it some sources, and Kirchner v. Venus (1859). However, as presented, I believe my declines of those were reasonable at the time, as they were all quite poorly sourced and remain borderline. But I'm glad I went back and found them. I know I have been wrong in some of my decisions, and am always trying to learn and be better. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

2. Thanks Captain. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the case of Danish collaborator trials, it looks to me that this wasn't an AfC decline, it was an article in mainspace that you moved to draftspace. It was deleted as G13 6 months later. You still believe this was a reasonable decision. Why do you think it is appropriate to move this kind of article to draftspace instead of nominating it for deletion at AfD?

   I did not intend it to be backdoor deleted via G13. I draftified the same day it was created because it had no sources, and thus expected the author to continue working on it. I did not AfD it because I believed it likely to be notable. Sadly, the author abandoned it, and made no further edits to it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 03:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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?

   As I have expounded above, I think that article inaccurate, and thus I question its conclusions. The article's "admin bias" section is drawing a broad conclusion from a single example, which is poor logic. Its saying that we have a problem with BLPs having false info, which can create cite-o-genesis. They claim admins are the problem here, but I think the article misunderstands how admins work. Yes, we do have problems with improperly cited info. But I think that is a problem of bad citation, not political bias. Now, if for the sake of argument, some area has a single viewpoint that isn't NPOV, and that has facilitated disruption or policy violations, yes ArbCom could tackle that in a case. But I don't see ArbCom going out of its way to try to tackle some vague conception of political bias. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 00:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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?

   If an admin ambushes somebody with a TBAN at the start of an ArbCom case, I think that action is absolutely subject to the review of the committee. In fact, the committee should certainly look into an ambush at the start of a case it is hearing, to ensure that sanction was to prevent disruption and not punish. AE actions can be overturned by the committee of course. Now I see what you're saying about admins having great power via the DS, and I want to examine that in reforming DS. I do note that a topic ban can always be appealed however, as can any admin action. If an admin makes a bad action, it should be easy to overturn it. Whether an admin should be de-mopped for bad actions is truly a case by case basis. A seeming ambush might actually be a good action to prevent disruption and should be lauded, or it could be an act of vengeance that should result in strong action against the admin. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 07:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. There have been some issues involving long term surveillance/analysis of veteran editors by the same few admins who oversee controversial topic areas. Some concern has also been expressed regarding the modification of DS by a single administrator to custom-fit the surveilled/analyzed behaviors of targeted editors. Do you think such activity makes the admin involved and possibly even prejudiced against the targeted editor(s)? 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.

   DGG has a noble sentiment here, and he is right on a fundamental level: as long as disruptive editors remain in a disruptive area, they will cause trouble. Now, I disagree that DS cannot help however, as on a tactical level not using DS would just end up with us topic banning people for the slightest infractions, which isn't productive. I think topic bans have often been wielded as a hammer solution when a scalpel was needed.

   In terms of involved admins, I think we as a community have been somewhat lax in holding admins to the WP:INVOLVED standard. This emerges from a practical problem: we have few admins who are willing to work in controversial areas, and thus those who do work in controversial areas tend to do a lot of the admin actions in that area. I disagree with the notion that an admin is involved in an issue simply because they have edited in that topic area. Just because I write about birds doesn't mean I can't sanction an editor for disrupting bird articles. But I can't sanction them for writing on the same pages I do or on the same issues. Now, I do understand that in certain topic areas, that line can be fuzzy. When an admin isn't directly involved, could they still be prejudiced because they are too close to the issue? Certainly, though I do not think this is a frequent occurrence. Avoiding prejudice is something admins should always be actively thinking about, and is a fundamental part of WP:AGF. ArbCom should take admins to task for breaking INVOLVED, as it threatens the institution of admins by decreasing trust. I think questions about admin involvement could be clarified by ArbCom via case law, though without a particular case I can't offer judgement on whether an admin was INVOLVED.

   With regards to Awilley's own page about DS, I think that is further evidence that ArbCom has failed to provide concrete and usable DS guidelines. I see Awilley's page as filling a void that ArbCom really should have filled itself. So I offer props to Awilley for writing down the de facto operation of DS, but imagine such a page will get re-examined in reforming DS. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 07:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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 am of the opinion that sanctions of admins are a good solution. As we have seen in the last few years, desysopping is such a serious action that many who have been desysopped simply leave the project altogether. That is a serious loss to us, especially when we are so low on volunteers and constantly losing good talent. I thought the medicine sanction was a great solution, and would try to craft similar solutions as an Arb. Whenever ArbCom (or admins) are making sanctions, we should always try to use the minimum possible sanction to prevent disruption. I would far rather topic ban an admin from a contentious area than have them just leave the project. I don't think having a sanction on an admin decreases perceived trust. Even though Doc James was sanctioned in the medicine case, I retain great trust in him, and he remains on the board of trustees. I think that our belief in the "puritanical" admin is foolish. Nobody is perfect, not even the Arbs. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 17:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

   I will echo my answer to NBB's question: some of these cases used a hammer where a scalpel would have done. My big issue was with Portals case, which led to the desysop of BHG. I note that the desysop of her was close: 9 to 6. I am of the opinion that a topic ban on portals would have done the trick, as that was the root of the issue. But instead, she lost the bit, and then predictably said she was going to quit editing. Now that has yet to happen, but she has intimated that it will. I think that is a grievous loss to the project. Now for the RHaworth case, I think that was absolutely a correct decision. RH was abusing the tools, and fundamentally misunderstood policy. Tool abuse is a severe issue and the committee acted well. For Kudpung, this is an edge case. However, I think that the chronic level of disruption Kudpung showed that they lacked the proper temperament. Unlike BHG, it wasn't just confined to one contentious topic area, it was a general and longstanding pattern. I take particular issue with how Kudpung treated GorillaWarfare, and Kudpung's hissy fit about WIR, as well as making threats from a position of adminship. So yes, I think the committee was also right on the Kudpung case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

   The WMF should deal only with what it legally must. All other issues should be left to the community, as we are self governing. I think the WMF has learned its lesson about trying to sidestep the community, but should it bypasses the community while I was an Arb, I would raise one heck of a ruckus. I think ArbCom's letter to the WMF was quite reasonable and I'm glad they published it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Fæ

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 ^✉ 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   ArbCom cases involving new users are pretty few and far between. If a new user is being disruptive, they usually just end up indeffed. ArbCom tends to deal with experienced users, because they often have an element of being unblockable. If you can show me a recent case where a newbie was a party I will take a deeper look. Now, I can easily see a newbie filing a case, and the committee should assume an abundance of good faith, as the newbie may not know how our systems work. With any likelihood, such cases would be best referred back to ANI for the community to deal with. ArbCom is truly the last resort. Addendum: and frankly, I'd feel bad for any newbie editor who was a party to a case, as that is a lot of drama for a new editor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 00:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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) reply

   Absolutely. As someone who uses they/them pronouns, I am heartened by the UCOC's stance and hope that it will make Wikipedia more welcoming. Respecting other people is part of the fundamental culture of Wikipedia, and respecting their pronouns is a natural extension of our beliefs on civility. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

   As with all things WMF, I wish the community had been more involved. However, I don't think that it will markedly change how things work on en-wiki. My reading of it is that the WMF will leave enforcement to the locals unless the locals are unwilling or unable. As long as the WMF doesn't try to take the reins, I think everything will be fine. The rules are not different from what we already practice: be civil, be nice, don't harass people, don't vandalize, don't abuse power. We already have made all of that against the rules. I think the UCOC is much more directed at non-English projects that have proved troublesome. I do not see the role of ArbCom changing, beyond perhaps enforcing section 3.2 of the UCOC. But again, ArbCom already holds admins and functionaries to account, so this does little more than enshrine existing practice. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Epiphyllumlover

2. If Wikipedia changed its policy on pronouns to require either a he or she, would you (A) be willing to stay on ArbCom, and if not, (B) be willing to stay on Wikipedia?-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 22:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   I think it is absurd to think that would ever happen. I can't imagine the community proposing such a thing, or even passing such a thing, or the WMF being okay with that. We would be alienating a good deal of our userbase who use a-traditional pronouns for either privacy or identity. It would also cause a media firestorm, and we would be widely excoriated. I would resign from Wikipedia in fiery protest, and would write angry editorials in as many newspapers would publish me. But thankfully, I do not think such a thing would ever happen. In the meantime, we can do a much better job respecting people's pronouns in general. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 00:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Would you support a software-based solution to the pronouns problem--such as a script you could load that would display messages directed to you with the pronouns of your choice?-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 00:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   I do think some sort of software approach could be helpful, perhaps something that would allow for easier use of Template:Them. Though I must say I lack the coding skills to make it happen personally :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 05:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Instant Comma

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

   Editor retention and recruitment. Wikipedia and its bureaucracy grow bigger everyday, but our volunteer base shrinks. I think this can be fixed in part by creating a more welcoming environment, by more skillful and deft work by our admins and by ArbCom, and by better training and dealing with new users. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 00:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Thank you. Supplementary question: Why do you think the volunteer base is shrinking? Instant Comma ( talk) 23:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   We lose quality editors faster than we recruit them. With any large project, interest naturally drops off over time. Contributors retire, get busy, and pass away. Contributors also get scared away or quit in protest, which is a threat we can actually deal with. Better management of Wikipedia, and competent action by admins and ArbCom can go a long way to fix this problem. We also do not attract many new contributors, which is a problem we can fix with better outreach and being friendlier to newbies. The WMF could have a hand in attracting new editors, but that is beyond the scope of this question. Being friendlier to newbies is key: we scare away a lot of good editors because of bad first interactions, or because our system is too byzantine. Streamlining our complex bureaucracy (like by reforming DS) would go a long ways to making it easier to attract and keep new users. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from RandomGnome

2. In one of your answers above, you made the following statement When dealing with harassment, and systemic issues, we need to believe people when they say there is a problem. The burden of proof shouldn't be on the oppressed to show that they are oppressed. Could you expand upon that, and describe how you would deal adequately with claims of harassment if there is no evidentiary standard required, while safeguarding anti-harassment policy from abuse and false claims? I'm thinking specifically of non-blatant, complex issues where claims of harassment are contested among editors and admins. RandomGnome ( talk) 07:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   This allows for an important clarification: believing reporters does not inherently mean accepting them as gospel. But it does mean we should never dismiss their claims out of hand. It also means that we should investigate all claims of harassment, and take them quite seriously. I hardly suggest that we have no evidentiary standard, without evidence we'd be unable to hear cases. But you raise a very good question about cases that aren't clear cut (which is the majority of what ArbCom hears).

   I'm sounding like a broken record, but each case is unique. But I can imagine the complexities of a typical harassment case. There is likely a power difference: a regular or new editor reporting an admin or experienced user. That sets up an inherently unequal dynamic. We shouldn't trust one over the other, we should hear them out equally. We also don't want to get bogged down by spurious or abusive requests, and have to keep an eye out for bad faith cases while not dismissing honest petitioners. The available evidence probably isn't clear (although the fact that we are in an online environment somewhat increases the availability of evidence). Even what counts as harassment could be unclear. Sure, doxxing someone is a clear violation. But a complex ArbCom case probably includes something like an editor following another around to articles. One believes they're being harassed, the other thinks they're just keeping a watch on a vandal/they weren't actually following them. Tackling these competing narratives requires a careful reading of the evidence. I've talked at some length here and provided a bunch of hypotheticals, but the point is: harassment is a complex issue. Tackling such cases requires a great deal of finesse and care. If we believe a false report, we show our veteran editors that we don't care about them, and that the trolls have won. If we don't believe a reportee that has really been harassed, we show that Wikipedia doesn't care about harassment, and we scare off new editors. To make a wrong decision either way is a grave miscarriage of justice that would weaken Wikipedia greatly. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 08:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Captain, Thank you for your detailed answer. RandomGnome ( talk) 18:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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?

   Within reason. If someone's username is "Dr. Ipsum", then yeah, use the honorific. If they sign their name a way that is different than their username and it doesn't violate our username policy, then yeah, use it. Calling someone by their name is just basic respect. This has limits however, and doesn't extend to article subjects. If somebody asks us to refer to them as "Lord highest togneme of the third and holy realm of the North"....thats just silly, and I'd check to see if they were a troll. I've never actually seen someone request to be referred to by a religious or titular name, and am not quite sure how that would present itself (if you have some examples, I'd love to see them). But I have seen requests that usernames not be shortened in certain ways, which is I think a fair and more likely request. Frankly, with honorifics, I think the issue would likely boil down to how it gets shortened. We shorten names frequently in discussion, to save time and space. Even my fairly short name is usually boiled down to "CE" or "Eek". If someone has a certain way they'd prefer it to be shortened, then say so. But if you have a long name, don't expect that it will always be typed out in full. As with the implementation of all rules, a dose of common sense is necessary. Here, the spirit of the law (respect people) is perhaps more important than the letter. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 00:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Grillofrances

2. Thanks to which of your skills, you could be a good ArbCom member despite not too long experience with editing Wikipedia?

   I will shamelessly copy part of my statement to that effect: "I believe that my unerringly civil attitude and thoughtful manner would be a boon for ArbCom. I hardly claim that I am the best candidate, and understand I lack the long experience of some of the candidates. However, I hope you will consider my enthusiasm and dedication, as well as my genial nature." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Robert McClenon

Being asked of all candidates

2. Sometimes when a dispute is described either in a Request for Arbitration or in a report to WP:ANI, an arbitrator or administrator says that it appears to be a content dispute. Many cases that are dealt with by ArbCom are fundamentally content disputes, except that conduct interferes with orderly resolution of the content issue. How would you assess when a dispute requires arbitration due to conduct issues? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

   At the ArbCom level, conduct and content are often intertwined. This is why so many cases have resulted in topic area specific DS, because those topics are inherently prone to misbehavior. I don't think there's some magic formula about what is and isn't a content dispute, beyond: not a conduct dispute. A content dispute ceases to be just about content when editors misbehave. What that looks like can be a fine line. When does an editor go from passionate about a subject to bludgeoning? When do helpful edits veer into disruptive? Deciding when to pursue a case takes many forms. ArbCom is the last resort. Issues should have been thoroughly discussed by all involved parties, and probably been to AN or ANI several times (or otherwise had evidence of failed admin/community mediation attempts). When taking a case, Arbs should be able to point out the conduct issues. If a vote to accept is being framed on the content, that is a bad accept. But if it is framed on the chronic or intractable issues of the contributors (which may be in a particular content area) that is a good accept. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Another type of case that is sometimes heard by ArbCom that is not a content dispute may be a case about an editor who has a long block log, but who is also a content creator, and another editor requests arbitration because they state that the subject editor is a net negative to the encyclopedia. (Such a situation will almost always involve an editor who has a combination of positive and negative contributions, because a difficult editor who is not also a content creator will be indeffed as not here constructively). Do you have views on when ArbCom should accept cases involving difficult editors? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

   Unblockables: you can't live with 'em, you can't live without 'em. I think ArbCom should be more willing to hear cases about unblockables. No matter someone's positive contributions, if they are consistently being disruptive or not following the rules, even at a low level, that is a problem. Our unblockables often rub other editors the wrong way, which decreases editor retention and creates a poor atmosphere, and can scare away new editors. I think ArbCom should be more willing to deal with these editors, and to provide truly final final warnings that have clear outlines and prompt consequences. However, I do think we need to be careful about banning productive editors. I would much prefer to slap a topic ban or three and some partial bans on an editor who makes good content, than to just throw the baby out with the bathwater. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply

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 ( [8], [9]) 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) 11:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply

   There is no deadline. On one hand, ArbCom should be as timely as possible, as we deal with real people who have real lives. On the other, rushing a board of volunteers seems likely to produce subpar results. The committee can only work as fast as it can, and I see no reason to slow or speed up that process. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

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) 11:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply

   This is a content issue (which ArbCom does not generally handle). I do think it shows that we are much harsher on pseudoscience than some sources. But Wikipedia has long taken firm stances based on scientific literature, such as Homeopathy (which we rightly regard as crackpot) based on a wide range of scientific literature. Wikipedia is one of the most used sources of knowledge in the world, and it would be a great failure on our part to promote unproven medical ideas. Why do we take a different stance than Brittanica? I am unsure, and without seeing the editorial process at Brittanica couldn't tell you. My guess is we have different views on false balance and what sources are usable. For acupuncture and pain relief, I looked up several meta-studies (as WP:MEDRS suggests and any good scientist knows is critical), [10] [11] [12] [13]. My reading of them is that acupuncture might help with some kinds of pain, but further study is necessary. Other reviews found that acupuncture was not helpful. Unless there is a clear scientific consensus, it would be irresponsible of us to say that it does or does not fix pain. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply