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.

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for standing! Would you have listened to SarahSV (aka SlimVirgin) in this case?

   Thank you for the reminder of the calming influence of the late lamented SarahSV.

   While there had been an apology from RexxS to Valeree, Valeree was still of the opinion that "I just want someone to take RexxS by the scruff and give him a good firm shake to focus his attention".

   An outbreak of peace with Valeree did not resolve the other issues in the complaint. It was certainly beyond her abilities to resolve the concerns of others.

   The case needed to be accepted, whether it needed to result in a desysop, or whether an accepteble level of "scruff taking" could have been found in the ensuing discussions is a different matter. Unfortunately, there aren't many (any?) options between public reproach at AN and desysop. Cabayi ( talk) 13:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Question from Ritchie333

2. Thanks for putting yourself forward to serve on the committee. I notice I opposed your RfA, and (with some irony given the above question) quoted RexxS : "Personally, with established editors, I'm in favour of talking far more and blocking not at all. When I was teaching, I often felt that punishing a naughty child was a mark of my failure to get through to them. Handing out blocks leaves the same impression. Except that we're now dealing with grown people, and frankly, that isn't the way to solve problems among adults." However, I'm not averse to changing my mind about how suitable editors are as admins, or indeed arbs, so it would be interesting to know how you've changed since then, and what you now think of this quotation?

   I recall your oppose. The comments you made about blocks and G5s were thought provoking. It took me by surprise (and some disappointment at my lack of articulacy) that a point which I made, "respect the block", intended to be about avoiding WP:WHEEL-warring, came across to you as mindless WP:CABALism. It just goes to show the truth of the Terry Pratchett quote at the top of my userpage. Reflecting on your vote and a couple of other Noes colours my views on the current RFA reform discussions. A well considered oppose can do the discussion and the candidate a world of good. It prompted the writing of the transcludable User:Cabayi/RFA No, which I haven't used yet as it still needs a bit of polish.

   On G5, I'm still pretty close to the position I held then, though willing to restore the deleted material for a bona-fide editor who wishes to take up the page - but nobody has yet asked.

   Like RexxS, I'd favour discussion but, just as nobody needs the admin tools for article creation, nobody comes to arbcom when talking has been successful.

   An aside on RexxS' comment, maybe it's a side-effect of COVID lockdowns & home-schooling but I've been more and more aware over the last 15 months (and sent a troubling amount of material for oversight) that we are not necessarily "dealing with grown people". Cabayi ( talk) 19:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Questions 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?

   Thanks, that's an intriguing question. If Arbcom were a legal process, I'd say balance of probability, but it's not. As nobody's life, liberty or property is in jeopardy at Arbcom I'm not sure that the question as framed is in tune with Arbcom's purpose. The core question in each case, regardless of the case's particulars, is "What's the best outcome for Wikipedia?". Most of the time (nearly every time) that'll be what's equitable to both parties in the dispute. Sometimes it won't. Cabayi ( talk) 21:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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?

   Do you have a specific in mind which might help frame a response? Cabayi ( talk) 21:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

6. As a follow-up to the response to Question #2: I don't have a specific past ArbCom Case, so I'll present you with a hypothetical. ArbCom has accepted a case that involves two users: User A and User B. User A and User B have been in a dispute that involves User A alleging that User B has repeatedly canvassed editors off-wiki on Redirects for Deletion. The community has been unable to come to a solution at WP:AN/ WP:ANI after repeated attempts, so ArbCom decides to accept the case. User A confidentially reports off-wiki evidence that User B engaged in off-wiki canvassing, providing as evidence (a) screenshots from non-public forums you do not have direct access to, (b) emails between User A and an email that User A says is User B's email, (c) emails between User A and a verified email of a Wikipedia editor not a party to the ArbCom case, and (d) screenshots of what User A says are discord messages from User B. What would be your approach in verifying that each of the types of evidence that User A has submitted is authentic? And, if you can't yourself verify evidence to be fully authentic, what would be your approach on how to weigh uncertainty in the authenticity of that evidence when determining whether or not User B engaged in off-wiki canvassing?

   Picking it apart, "screenshots from non-public forums" implies that both users A & B are participants in that forum, and hints that User A may possibly be pursuing the case without clean hands. I would request that both parties send in a copy of their interactions in the key period, whether screenshots from the forum or emails (with headers). Requesting a specific set of data from both sides, and both sides knowing that the same request has been made of both of them, should encourage openness & honesty from both sides. It might be possible to tie the emails' source IP to checkuser data.

   At its core, the case pivots on the appearance of new users at RFD. There are more participants with evidence than just A & B. Cabayi ( talk) 08:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 15:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Updated with follow-up. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Questions from Barkeep49

2. I understand having no reform agenda, but the community either can't reform ArbCom directly, as in the case of procedures (including ARBPROC and DS), or has never done so completely on its own, as with ARBPOL where the committee has proposed changes that then have been accepted by the community rather than completely through the community route. So can you provide some more context/explain further the part of your statement where you write, I bring no personal agenda to reform Arbcom - that should be a matter for the community rather than the Arbcom itself.?

   The context was Banedon's statement which reads as a legalistic reform agenda. I do not view my candidacy as a referendum on Arbcom reform, just a candidacy to serve. Cabayi ( talk) 21:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Question from TheresNoTime

2. In your opinion, what is the Arbitration Committee's core purpose?

   To arbitrate in disputes and secure the outcome most beneficial to Wikipedia. Cabayi ( talk) 21:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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?

   The question implies that it's a matter of Arbcom's case-handling. It's an equally valid starting point that those cases which can be resolved without sanctions are generally resolved before arriving at Arbcom. Do you have an analysis of admin conduct cases at AN/ANI? Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

   Selection bias was the descriptor which wouldn't come to mind when I answered. Cabayi ( talk) 10:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

   I wouldn't presume to know all the evidence which the committee has seen, nor which points they found most telling in their private discussions, not to the point of disputing the outcome. Cabayi ( talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

6. (Follow-up to Q1) I'm afraid I don't have that analysis. If you disagree with the framing of the question, could you please answer the substantive question: what are your thoughts on the Committee's approach to desysop cases?

   I favour a standard recall process & voted for it in this year's RfC. The community has decided that, for the moment, Arbcom remains the only forum for requesting desysop.

   A case which has arrived at Arbcom has (presumably) gone through talk page discussions, AN/ANI discussions, and a decision process on whether to accept/decline the Arbcom case. I would never argue that a case at Arbcom is a foregone conclusion as you first implied, but it will have gone through multiple stages at which it could be de-escalated or resolved. The cases which make it to a full Arbcom case will represent the most intractable cases, not a full spectrum of complaints.

   Arbcom's recent move to allow unresponsive admins 3 months to return and re-open the case gives admins who may feel overwhelmed by the process plenty of time to regroup, gather their thoughts, and re-assess their position. I take that as a positive move. Cabayi ( talk) 17:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Questions from George Ho

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

   The UCoC appears (imo) to merely wrap some boilerplate text and legal language around policies which already exist, and are enforced, on the English Wikipedia. There's been no blitz of material imposing new requirements on enwiki users. Yet undoubtedly it's been a significant effort for WMF and they view it as being important.

   I believe it has two purposes, 1 - to bring small wikis up to the same levels of governance Enwiki has; 2 - for external consumption, primarily when Section 230 comes under renewed scrutiny. The WMF will be able to go before Congress and point to legally enforceable behavioral norms on Wikipedia, norms which the community itself has enforced since forever. This will let them differentiate Wikipedia from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the like. Nevermind that the community has maintained that point for years too - WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Cabayi ( talk) 08:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

   ​Two hours after posting this reply I received an email notifying me of a post on Diff which touches lightly on the same issues. Cabayi ( talk) 11:51, 18 November 2021 (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'm pretty sure I could dig through cases and come up with one which one I could spin into a life-affirming tale which sprinkles fairy-dust all over my candidacy. However, the only case which recurs, and does so in multiple contexts is WP:FRAMBAN. It established a clear dividing line between the roles of WMF & Arbcom. It is in many ways the Marbury v. Madison of Wikipedia. Just as Marbury's history shows its ongoing influence and importance I believe Fram's case will endure as a boundary marker between WMF & Arbcom. Cabayi ( talk) 09:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Questions from Kudpung

2. If one were to compare the structures of Arbcom cases and ANI threads (apples and oranges to some), what would be your opinion on the piling on and participation of users who are clearly not involved and their eventual influence on the deliberations of the Committee, i.e. should the Committee be examining directly uninvolved participants' comments for veracity, relevance and substance and taking those comments into consideration?

   If the pile-on comments show a common thread and build an "ongoing pattern-of-behaviour" aspect to the case, yes. If they're off-topic, not so much. Cabayi ( talk) 10:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

4. If an accused declines to actively participate in the Arbcom case against them (Cf. RexxS) and/or retires from the project (or if an admin voluntary cedes their tools) during it, in your opinion would this be a clear admission of guilt and one that permits the Committee to pronounce by default almost the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers?

   Not "a clear admission of guilt" but a problem of its own, something akin to a driver refusing to take a sobriety test or breath test, or an athlete missing too many urine tests.

   Of the two scenarios, WP:ADMINACCT requires an admin to account for their use of the tools. Recent cases have seen the admins concerned given a window in which they can return to the case and have it reopened. If they will not account for their adminship for 3 months or more - whose choice is the desysop really?

   For the non-admin cases, the committee's purpose is arbitration. If one party to the case declines to participate, a default judgement is the only plausible way forward. Cabayi ( talk) 10:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your answers, Cabayi. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Questions from 1233

2. You say you hate the foundation's handling of Fram, so I'm asking this question: How do you look into the foundation's handling of the Wikimedians of Mainland China working group, which spurred local breaking news (yes, Hong Kong news outlets), shocked the whole Chinese Community, and brought what some considered as injustice to Wikipedia? (Links for your reference: September Office Action Statement , Signpost # In the News)

   The Fram standoff resolved when WMF came to the realisation that they ought not to undermine the established governance process and handed the matter back to Arbcom for a final decision. The Chinese wiki rejected the idea of setting up an Arbcom - zh:维基百科:仲裁委员会. It's a sad situation, but I can't see that WMF are the instigators of the situation, nor the reason that the Chinese wiki lacks an Arbcom. They're doing their best in a poor situation. Cabayi ( talk) 08:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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?

   The question as asked does not reflect the events in the case you cite.

   To your question: You don't know what evidence exists in the CU logs which, despite being years old may still be entirely relevant and on point. Am I happy for a CU to tag socks, 100% yes, it's what the role is about.

   To the case you cite: Yamla's comments indicated that Darkness Shines ( talk · contribs) was likely (which is a specific degree of certainty when used by CUs) the sockmaster. Hemiauchenia tagged it as a sock of Hillbillyholiday ( talk · contribs) based on off-wiki evidence. Bbb23 removed that tag and requested it was left to Yamla to tag the sock according to the evidence used. Ideally Hemiauchenia should send their off-wiki evidence to Yamla or the CUs' mailbox for further scrutiny. Sadly sockmasters don't always tell the truth on-wiki or off-wiki, and there's nothing they'd like more than to misdirect investigations of their activities. I'd like to see an SPI report filed and proper tagging, but the tagging needs to be correct. Misleading tags are worse than no tags as they may misdirect reporting of later socks.

   I don't see anything in the case as you questioned, or the case as it happened, which could form the basis of any Arbcom intervention. Cabayi ( talk) 09:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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?

   WP:5P4 is one of the five pillars, not an optional extra. If one of the editors needs time away from Wikipedia to gain some perspective we can only wish them well, Whether the sanction is a net gain would depend on the balance between their content creation and the drain on volunteer time caused by their bickering. At the same time, Wikipedia might occasionally have to suffer the loss of a good content creator in order to maintain a harmonious editing environment. Cabayi ( talk) 16:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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?

   Yes, but editor retention in general, not limited to just the retention of the subject of the complaint, or the filer of the complaint, or any of the witnesses. Cabayi ( talk) 16:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 ( talk) 00:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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?

   There was nothing actionable in the report. Blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive and blocking an account which hasn't been used in 8 months isn't going to prevent anything. Your evidence may be useful in tying the master to a later sock. Not all evidence is useful straightaway. So I'd say Thank you for filing the report, but there's nothing that can be gainfully done at this point. Cabayi ( talk) 16:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Question from Moneytrees

2. Thank you for running. At my voter guide ( User:Moneytrees/ACE2021, in the "thoughts on the committee in 2021 section"), I outline a series of five unblock related actions Arbcom has recently taken that have gone poorly, in part because it seems that only technical aspects of CU blocks are being looked at, instead of the behavioral issues that sometimes lead to socking and CU blocks. As a SPI clerk, what are your thoughts on these unblocks, and do you have any thoughts on what you might do differently if you were on the committee? Thank you.

   I'd love to take the high ground and have a superior attitude in those cases, but I can't. In July 2020 I had a large part in lifting the TPA restriction of Curse of Fenric ( talk · contribs) to allow them to submit evidence for an SPI case. Needless to say he went straight back to using his talk page to pursue his previous agenda.

   Most unblocks are a WP:AGF act which have the potential to go awry. I've renamed many users and lifted their softblocks while having an impression the user is about to dive into WP:COI & WP:Autobiography editing. Oftentimes we have to let bad users prove they're untrustworthy rather than assuming it. Cabayi ( talk) 10:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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?

   You propose creating a second market, in the names of buyers on off-wiki freelance sites. My initial reaction is no, and becomes more NO the more I think about it. The off-wiki markets I've seen, and the cases brought to SPI, show that the losing bidders for an article creation job will then nominate the article for deletion in the hope of winning the commission second time round. Switching one market for another just alters the context of the corruption and worse yet, has WMF paying for it.

   I'm saddened that despite your 15 years and 19000 edits you don't feel invested enough in the project to report the meatpuppets & protect Wikipedia. I don't see the point in an exclusive Wiki syntax training. Why should anyone be excluded from training? Shouldn't the training be offered to all, for the good of the wiki? Cabayi ( talk) 09:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I didn't think of the possibility that some former employees might try to take advantage of their ex-bosses for ulterior motives besides money. Verification for bounty eligibility would need to be part of the system. Many freelancing sites save past conversations, so it shouldn't be too hard for employees to verify who their employer(s) are and the extent of their past employment.

I fleshed out some of the details on the "exclusive training" midway through User_talk:Wugapodes#Paid_voting_/_commenting_plan. A legitimate "marketplace" (or challenge/reward page) already exists on enwiki, and has for years, although probably less than 1% of editors know about it. Wiki-syntax tutoring between first-language English speakers and people for whom English is a second language is a niche sort of thing that is best separated from wiki infrastructure intended for just anyone. I agree with you in that a system to match tutors with candidates could be opened in a broader way, especially if the supply of tutors is willing to meet the demand.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Epiphyllumlover, there are 324 other language Wikipedia projects. Are you proposing that the English community undermine their ability to develop their own materials? Or that the ability to communicate in English should no longer apply on the English Wikipedia? Either way, it's beyond the remit of Arbcom. Cabayi ( talk) 11:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't see anything changing with the use of English on enwiki. It is possible for people who have limited English skills to communicate in English via synchronous communication. So when there is a misunderstanding, the tutor can reword it in another way, or give examples until everything is understood. This is why an "exclusive" or separate tutoring type program would be especially beneficial.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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.)

   There are no perfect solutions. I don't agree that the potential for gaming one-way IBANs is "purely technical". The context may be explained by pointing to the Arbcom case without further comment. I'm open to reconsidering any IBAN if it's purpose has been served and it's no longer required. Cabayi ( talk) 10:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

4. Here is the two-way IBAN in question, here is the FoF on which it was based, and here is the original failed one-way proposal. Your thoughts?

   So long as the other party to the two-way prefers for it to remain in place, it probably should. It protects you both. However, three more years have passed and maybe the other party's opinion has changed and they're now ready to agree to its lifting at another appeal? Cabayi ( talk) 13:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

6. In that case (assuming the other party still wishes it to remain in place for whatever reason), would you support amending the ban to add the wording ...due to one-way hounding by User Y to prevent further instances of me being threatened/intimidated/stigmatized based solely on the existence of the ban?

   That's a pointed question...

   am I willing to give you assurances regarding an appeal in order to get your vote? No.

   am I willing to give you a fair hearing, as one voice out of fifteen, if I'm elected and you appeal? Yes.

   - Cabayi ( talk) 11:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position about ArbCom finally following through with DS amendments and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which was put on the back burner in 2021?

   Coincidentally I've been thinking on DS since yesterday. It's an arcane process for resolving restraining disputes between experienced editors. To novice editors they're completely baffling. The use of DS notices, without any specific restrictions/sanctions is something we'd all call a chilling effect if we saw it on another website. It needs an overhaul. It needs clarification. You're preaching to the choir concerning the review of DS. Cabayi ( talk) 10:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

   Generally I hold to the view that systems should be set up so that it's easier for a newcomer to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing. It's not clear to me that DS do that. Cabayi ( talk) 11:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

4. Your response to the pile-ons above gave me pause. I have serious reservations about the benefits of a mobocracy, and the lack of decorum at ANI and AN, and sometimes even ARCA. Do you really believe there is merit in pile-ons, especially considering WP's own systemic biases?

   My answer to Kudpung's Q1? If the original complaint sparks from a single incident, and the pile-ons create or add to a picture of the issue being ongoing problematic behaviour in that regard, then yes, they deserve the evidence they add deserves consideration. If the pile-ons are off-topic, a different issue, or simply a settling of scores - they should be ignored. Cabayi ( talk) 10:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Cabayi, thank you for volunteering for this thankless job and for your convincing replies. I am somewhat relieved by your response to Q1, and understand your reply to Q2 but I just want to add this little tidbit, and a quote, "Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.” There's also a good chance that pile-ons can cause an unexpected result as discovered in the Asch-conformity-experiments, or some off-wiki suggestions. I'm of the mind that decorum is of the utmost importance when an editor is "on trial", and that involved editors should have their say, but the feedback from uninvolved editors should carry the most weight. Just sayin'... Atsme 💬 📧 17:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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?

   I think your question points to its answer. The community decides content issues. The admins (with community input at AN/ANI) decide conduct issues.

   Once an issue is pushed beyond WP:3O & WP:DRN to WP:AN, WP:ANI & WP:Arbcom it ceases to be about content and becomes focussed on conduct, with the content becoming merely evidence. A not-so-gentle reminder to the participants that they are about to lose any hope of steering the content discussion may concentrate minds.

   I'm drawn to the aphorism, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Unfortunately, users at this point may be deeply entrenched in WP:IDHT & WP:RGW mindsets and incapable of appreciating the fine selection of sticks on display.

   It's worth noting that Roosevelt's stick shtick emphasises the need for civility first.

   Your experience at WP:DRN would put you at the top of my voting list for Arbitrators. I hope to see your name on the candidates list next time round. Cabayi ( talk) 11:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply