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

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2020 candidate: Scottywong 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.

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

   I'm not a regular at TfD, and I haven't been involved in editing any articles that have experienced any recent disagreements regarding infoboxes. So, from my admittedly limited perspective, I would agree. But, given that WP is a big place, I also acknowledge that it's entirely possible that I'm unaware of an ongoing conflict about infoboxes. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 07:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I had two initial reactions when I first heard about the WMF's UCoC: firstly, I felt that it's a good idea in theory, because I think we can all agree that WP works better when everyone is civil, cordial, cooperative, and free from harassment. Secondly, I felt that any behavioral policy written by the WMF should not be forced upon any project; each WP community should review the terms of the UCoC and decide if it wants to adopt some or all of it. After all, one of the stated objectives of the UCoC seems to be to set a standard for behavioral policy on smaller WP projects that have little to no behavioral policies of their own. En-wiki already has significant behavioral policies, and after taking a brief look at the draft UCoC, it appears to be largely duplicative of en-wiki's existing conduct policies. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 16:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. I'm pleased to read that you find ArbCom essential to the project. Curiously, 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 not sure if I can point to any single ArbCom case that has affected me personally more than another. The most recent case that I followed closely was the case on Portals late last year, since I was originally named as a party to it (but later removed myself). I had been closing many of the MfDs on Portals at the time, and the ArbCom case certainly put a swift end to the significant tension and frequent arguments surrounding that topic. I've also followed some of the other recent desysopping cases, and while I didn't necessarily agree with the outcome of all of them, I think it's important for admins to be held to a high standard. Finally, I've occasionally checked in on the content dispute and conduct complaint cases that often result in site bans, topic bans, interaction bans, discretionary sanctions, etc., and I think these are critical for keeping the more contentious areas of WP from grinding to a halt. ‑Scottywong| [chatter] || 16:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. Follow-up question to Q2 (I hope): People mentioned your involvement in the Manning naming dispute, which then became subject to the ArbCom case. You were named one of the parties of the case; two proposals against you didn't pass ([1], [2]). Well, I see you made your answer to Moneytrees's question related to the matter. Curiously, why not mention the "Manning" ArbCom case as part of your answer to my Q2?

   Quite honestly, it was over 7 years (and a long wiki-break) ago, and I completely forgot that I had even participated in that case. Also, as you mentioned, no proposals involving me were passed in that case, so I don't particularly regard it as an ArbCom case that "affected me personally" in a deep way. That ArbCom case was not the trigger that motivated me to correct my ignorance regarding gender identity; that happened sometime afterwards. Frankly, reading the words I wrote about Manning 7 years ago shocked me; I had completely forgotten about that episode and couldn't believe how insensitive I was at the time. My reaction was, "omg that was me saying that?" ‑Scottywong| [soliloquize] || 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Could you please elaborate on why you decided to unblock a user with 60k+ edits blocked for copyright violations who had been blocked twice before for the same reason at User talk:Dutchy85/Archive 9#November 2019? Specifically the rational, where you said, "In light of the fact that you've edited for an extended period of time since your last copyright violation, presumably with no other incidents, I'm going to change the block from indefinite, to expiring at the end of the year. This will give other editors a chance to dig through your last 9000 edits to see if there have been any other copyright violations. If there have been, I will likely reinstate the indefinite block. If not, it will expire at the end of the year and you can resume editing. I think it goes without saying that this is your last chance, and the next copyright violation will result in a permanent ban."- what was the thought process behind the bolded parts? Thanks.

   I don't recall much about this incident, but I've tried to review it to refresh my memory. Firstly, looking through this user's block log, while they had been blocked twice before I blocked them, only one of those blocks was for copyright violations, and that block was about 1.5 years before my block. (The first block was for "disruptive editing".) In their unblock request, the user argued that they had made a mistake, and while they had been blocked previously for copyvios, they had made somewhere in the range of 9000 edits in the intervening time without any issues. The user basically admitted to making a careless mistake, and while that explanation strained credulity to some degree, I decided to assume good faith that they had had a temporary lapse in judgment. I certainly didn't have the time to review those 9000 edits for copyright violations, but I wanted to give other editors (who perhaps have worked more closely with this editor) the opportunity to speak up in case there was something I was missing. So, I reduced the block from indefinite to around 6 weeks, partly to impress upon the user the seriousness of their infraction, but mostly to provide additional insurance that I wasn't unblocking someone who would go right back to violating copyrights. I vaguely recall spending some of that time spot-checking some of those 9000 edits for evidence of copyvios, and finding none. Admittedly, this is an unusual unblocking strategy, and one that I don't believe I've employed in any other situation, but it seemed to make sense at the time. Since the block expired, this user hasn't been blocked again, and a quick glance at their user talk page shows no warnings for copyright violations, so in hindsight it seems that this situation worked out for the best. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 21:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Do you still stand by the statements ([3] [4] [5] [6]) you made at Talk:Chelsea Manning in August 2013? Specifically "What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog instead of a human, that we should refer to him as Rover, and use "it" instead of "he/she"? Manning can say that he wants to be a girl all he wants, but the fact remains that he's not.", "If Manning made a statement tomorrow that he now considers himself to be a golden retriever, and would like to be referred to as Rover, and would like people to use "it" as a pronoun when referring to him... would you argue that the title of this article should be Rover Manning, that we should change all pronouns to "it", and add a sentence to the lead that says "Rover Manning is a golden retriever." After all, that is what Rover wants, and it would be disrespectful of it to do otherwise. Obviously, that is a somewhat ridiculous analogy, but it is an equivalent circumstance.", and "So, I can just choose my gender by making a public statement? "Hey everybody, I'm female today!" What if Manning decided to issue a public statement every day at sunrise, toggling his gender each time. Would we have to retitle the article and change all the pronouns on a daily basis? It seems to me that determining someone's gender by asking them is not terribly scientific. Let's put the question this way: If we got a panel of physicians or biologists to examine Manning, would they conclude that he is male or female?"? Thanks.

   No, I absolutely don't stand by those statements, and I'm genuinely embarrassed and ashamed at the lack of sensitivity and awareness that this version of me from the past exhibited. In the 7+ years since that incident took place, I've educated myself on the difference between biological sex and gender; a topic that I was clearly ignorant about in 2013. I'm sure that if you dig through my contributions over the last 13 years, you'll likely find other instances where I said something that was insensitive or ignorant, because I'm human and imperfect. However, I like to think that one of my redeeming qualities is my ability to step back, realize and admit when I was wrong, learn from my mistakes, and become a better person as a result. This is an example of an instance when I was unequivocally wrong.
   
   For anyone still concerned about this, I hope that my subsequent discussions in the Workshop phase of the related ArbCom case help to show that, while my comments were insensitive and ignorant, they didn't come from a place of hate for anyone in the LGBTQ community. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 21:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. @Scottywong, what is your goal for Wikipedia? What do you want it to look like and what do you hope to change? I noticed that you managed a team of engineers. This would definitely make good leadership skills; how do you plan to use your influence?

   I wouldn't say I have any particularly ambitious goals for Wikipedia, or an agenda to specifically change anything. I want Wikipedia to continue being a place that is conducive to collaboratively documenting the bulk of human knowledge, and I hope to do my small part to help with that effort. Regarding my work experience, I agree that managing a team has allowed me to develop some skills that I didn't have in the past. Among them are the ability to cut through the noise surrounding an issue, get to the heart of that issue, and propose focused solutions to that issue. Also, I think it's important to develop a degree of confidence in your decision-making skills when you're put in a position to make strategic decisions, and I believe my professional experiences have helped me to develop that confidence. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 15:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Great question, about a very difficult issue. My opinion is that the problem of "unblockables" springs naturally from the inherent subjectivity of our civility policies. The line between what's civil and uncivil will always be a fuzzy one, and any attempts to objectively characterize civility and strictly enforce it would turn WP into a bizarre, robotic place where emotions, feelings, and free expression are no longer practical. Since civility will always involve wiggle room, there will always be an opportunity for someone to make the "net positive" argument, where a productive or prolific editor shouldn't be sanctioned for civility violations that are within the fuzzy part of the civility spectrum, because their positive contributions outweigh their occasionally negative attitude. It's often a compelling argument, because banning the author of multiple FAs for saying a naughty word feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
   
   With that said, I generally agree with the findings of that RfC, but I don't think that implementing them would result in anything more than a small, incremental improvement. Although, I certainly don't have a better solution to the problem. It may very well be that this is a problem without a solution; it's possible that this is simply the natural consequence of jamming thousands of humans together into a collaborative effort, where everyone doesn't always agree on things, and where free expression is permitted, facilitated, and encouraged. I'm ok with that, and perhaps the "meta net positive" argument is that WP is a better place because we don't stifle free expression, even if that free expression occasionally leads to difficulties that need to be dealt with. ‑Scottywong| [chatter] || 22:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   In my opinion, the committee should have the right — but not the obligation — to independently investigate the validity of evidence presented and the accuracy of claims made. In other words, if a claim doesn't "smell right", or if a piece of evidence is presented without full context, members of the committee should have the option to make the decision to investigate further to understand the truth. And, the results of any such investigation should be made public, as long as that public disclosure doesn't violate anyone's privacy. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the committee to be a full-on investigative agency, or make it their "duty" to conduct independent investigations on every piece of evidence that is presented to them. That's simply not practical, and it usually shouldn't be necessary if we're trusting editors to act in good faith. ‑Scottywong| [speak] || 05:51, 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) 01:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think that it would be right to invalidate anyone's good-faith participation in a consensus discussion or an ArbCom case based only on who they are, or their level of involvement in the subject being discussed. Everyone has opinions, and anyone is free to offer theirs in a discussion. However, there is a big difference between a discussion at ANI and an ArbCom case. A discussion at ANI is mostly a bunch of opinions all mashed together, often with little to no real evidence offered, and usually very little structured analysis of that evidence. An ArbCom case is highly structured, requiring evidence for all claims that are made, with a lot of eyes on that evidence, and discussion on each bit of evidence. This is designed to ensure that throw-away comments and simple opinions with no supporting evidence are not given any significant weight when it comes to boiling a case down to Final Decisions. ‑Scottywong| [speak] || 05:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong: Thank you for your thoughtful answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I believe that the first paragraph of WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE lays this out quite clearly. A dispute over unreliable sources is a content dispute. Such a dispute could spill over into a conduct dispute if one or more of the editors involved in that dispute begin to behave in a disruptive or unprofessional way. Of course, it's possible for a dispute to be simultaneously both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, and in fact, most conduct disputes are also content disputes (since most discussions and disputes on Wikipedia are ultimately about the content of an article). ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 06:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 06:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I think you're conflating two unrelated concepts. While this is a statement by the WMF CEO, I can't find any reasonable way to connect this statement that "there is no neutral stance" to the theory that Maher is actually advocating for certain articles on Wikipedia to be exempt from NPOV policies. To me, her statement describes her belief that there is no middle-ground when it comes to racism: either you're against racism, or you're racist. I can find no link here to a change in WP editing policies, and to be clear, I don't think there should be topics on WP that are exempt from NPOV. ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 07:22, 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 [7]. 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) 06:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think I have enough information to form an informed opinion on whether or not WP has a left-wing bias, and furthermore, I think it would be a very difficult thing to accurately measure. The article that you linked to describes in detail a "study" that was undertaken to determine the ideological bias of Wikipedia, but after scanning the article, it seems clear to me that this study is highly flawed and its conclusions about WP's bias are unconvincing, in my opinion. For instance, the study found that pro-Trump editors were 6 times more likely to be disciplined than anti-Trump editors, and concludes that admins are handing out sanctions based on their ideological bias. The study never considers whether there are any patterns within that set of pro-Trump editors that could account for this discipline disparity. For instance, are pro-Trump editors more likely to display disruptive behavior for some reason? Are pro-Trump editors more likely to be POV-pushing SPAs who aren't really here to build a neutral encyclopedia, and are only interested in lobbying for Trump to be portrayed in a positive light? I can't say if either of these are true, but the study considers neither seriously, and seems to draw its conclusions very prematurely, without considering other possibilities.
   
   I would concede that there are plausible reasons for why a left-wing bias could be present on Wikipedia. Firstly, there are simply more anti-Trump people in America than pro-Trump people, as evidenced by the popular vote results in the recent election. If you just randomly picked 100,000 Americans to edit Wikipedia, you are likely to get more people with left-wing views than right-wing views. Secondly, editing Wikipedia can be seen as a scholarly pursuit, and it has been widely studied and reported that Americans with a college education are far more likely to vote for left-wing candidates, and Americans with lesser education are far more likely to vote for right-wing candidates. If Wikipedia editors are more likely to have a higher education (I'm not certain if that's true, but it seems plausible), then it would follow that Wikipedia editors are more likely to have left-wing views. (Obviously, more people than just Americans edit en-wiki, but Americans are the largest nationality, especially when it comes to editors who frequently edit articles on US politics.) Thirdly, it's possible that the set of sources that we consider to be "reliable" are biased towards the left, and since our content is based on reliable sources, it must necessarily share the bias of those sources.
   
   The last part of your question is whether or not something should be done about this bias, if it exists. In my opinion, if it can be shown that an admin is systematically disciplining editors based on their perceived political ideology, then that admin should be appropriately sanctioned. If it can be shown that editors are attempting to game the system to promote their political ideology, those editors should be sanctioned. Otherwise, if Wikipedia is biased as a result of a natural bias that exists in the set of people who are interested in editing Wikipedia, then I think that the only thing that could reasonably done to correct that bias would be to continue working to ensure that Wikipedia has a diverse editor base by making Wikipedia a welcoming, friendly, inclusive place where well-meaning people from all walks of life are encouraged to participate in good faith and can feel comfortable doing so. ‑Scottywong| [yak] || 08:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: [8], UK: [9], Canada: [10] [11]) 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?

   The role of ArbCom is limited, and its scope is primarily focused on settling conduct disputes. I don't believe that ArbCom is necessarily the place to right great wrongs. And while I admit that I'm personally sympathetic to the causes you've mentioned, I definitely don't agree that arbitrators should try to imprint their political or social beliefs on other users. So, to the extent that an editor or group of editors is engaging in overtly racist, homophobic, sexist, or other oppressive or bigoted behavior that rises to the level of harassment or clearly disrupts editors' abilities to work in a comfortable environment; such users can and should be sanctioned by ArbCom. Beyond that, it is not ArbCom's role to tell other users how to write content, nor is it ArbCom's role to write new policies or change existing policies. So, in summary, I believe that ArbCom can play a limited role in addressing systemic oppression, but only to the extent to which policy allows. Editors must also continue to shape WP policy and ensure it evolves to address these issues appropriately. ‑Scottywong| [converse] || 16:25, 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)

   While I have never been a CheckUser, I understand how it works in theory and I'm confident that I have the technical knowledge required to interpret results. I have a strong technical background in networking, so I'm quite familiar with IP addresses, subnet masks, CIDR ranges, etc. I also have a background in coding and web development, so I understand the mechanics of how web browsers work, the information that they expose, and how that information can be used to positively identify a user. So, while I'll certainly need some time to get up to speed on the CU interface and how it works because much of that information is not publicly documented (for good reason), I'm confident that I will be able to independently interpret CU results without needing to defer to anyone else's opinion or interpretation. ‑Scottywong| [converse] || 16:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
   
   Addenum to my answer based on AmandaNP's clarification of the question:
   Regarding my ability to think independently and avoid just going in the same direction as the rest of the herd, I think I have a track record that shows I have the ability to speak my mind even when my opinion might not match everyone else's opinion. In fact, my track record likely shows that I possess this ability to a fault at times, and that might actually be one of the reasons that I don't currently appear to be a frontrunner in this election. That being said, in situations that seem uncontroversial and where someone else has already done the legwork of researching and coming up with what seems like a reasonable conclusion, I'll occasionally make the judgment that it's safe to defer to that conclusion. Additionally, in situations where I have a minority opinion, I think I usually know when to drop the stick and accept that I'm in the minority. I admit that I don't have a lot of experience with checkuser blocks, enforcement against checkuser actions, functionary appointments, etc., because these are not areas of WP where I have spent much time. There are plenty of areas within WP that I'm not intimately familiar with. However, the solution to that problem is not to throw your hands in the air and say, "well, I don't know much about that, so I'll just wait until someone else says something and then just agree with them." The right way to handle it is to do the research and investigation required to educate yourself on the issue until you're able to draw your own conclusions and confidently express your own opinion. ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 00:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Every individual has their own implicit biases, tendencies, and beliefs regarding political and social issues. These tendencies often exist at the unconscious level, and manifest themselves in how we perceive society and the world at a fundamental level. Therefore, it's almost unavoidable for people to edit an article from their own individual perspective, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If everyone that edits an article has the same perspective, then you're right, that article will probably have a bias in that direction, and depending on the popularity and importance of that topic, that bias might persist for an extended period of time. Highly popular articles will almost certainly have a diverse editor pool whose biases will naturally tend to cancel each other out. Less popular articles are at a higher risk of having a small, less diverse editor pool. But, also consider that less popular articles tend to get less attention from readers, so any biases in those articles will affect a proportionally smaller audience. Fortunately, this means that any highly biased articles are not likely to have high readership.
   
   If a natural bias appears in an article as a result of good faith editing, then I don't think there is a problem that needs to be fixed or can be fixed. Humans are imperfect, Wikipedia is imperfect, and we can't demand that editors stop perceiving the world in a certain way. However, if there is any evidence of bad-faith attempts to game the system to intentionally introduce a bias into an article or set of articles, that is a completely different story, and that is something that absolutely should be dealt with by ArbCom. ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 23:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. According to XTools, you have just over 4000 contributions to mainspace on en-wiki. Do you think this places you well to understand the situation of content contributors? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   You're correct that content creation is not something I focus a lot of my time on. However, I do think I've done enough of it to understand how it works, and what content creators go through during that process. I've created a number of articles, and took one article to GA (although it was later reassessed to B-class). It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. You could have a room full of the most brilliant scientists in the world, but they're not going to cure cancer if there isn't a janitor to empty the garbage cans and clean the toilets, someone in accounting to order the supplies they need, and an IT department to ensure that everyone can access the internet and share data. Consider this: if a volunteer hadn't coded the edit counter that you used to analyze my editing patterns, you wouldn't have been able to know what percentage of my edits were to mainspace. I've created many other such tools that allow users to to their jobs better, and I perform other tasks that allow this place to run more smoothly. While content creators are obviously critical to Wikipedia, there are many other types of contributors here: bot maintainers, tool creators, copyeditors, category maintainers, portal creators, etc. I think it's important that all types of contributors are represented at ArbCom. ‑Scottywong| [converse] || 15:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. If you are elected, you will have to work closely with the rest of the committee, including some of your fellow candidates in this election. Given that, would you prefer to have as colleagues those candidates that are (quoting your own words from a well-known off-wiki forum) trying to "reduce the amount of scrutiny that is focused on them" or the ones that are "just lazy procrastinators"? – Joe (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Considering that I am a lazy procrastinator myself, I'd prefer to work with colleagues that are also lazy procrastinators. My comments in an off-wiki forum were obviously an intentional bad-faith assumption for the purposes of making a joke, and shouldn't be taken seriously. ‑Scottywong| [chatter] || 15:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 editor does something that is deserving of a topic ban on an article that is under discretionary sanctions, then they should be topic banned. However, I don't think that topic bans should be so broadly construed that they would prevent an editor even appealing the decision or defending themselves in a case. If that has actually happened in the past, I would consider that an overreach. ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 17:34, 22 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)?

   I think I'd need to see specific cases in order to make a judgment, because so much of these types of cases lies in the context of everyone's actions. But in general, WP:INVOLVED is a clear policy. If an administrator is actually engaged in a dispute with an editor, or a content dispute within an article, then they are considered involved and should not perform any administrative actions in that area. Otherwise, if their involvement is limited to administrative actions, monitoring articles, monitoring editors, applying sanctions when they're warranted, etc., then should generally not be considered involved. Accusing an admin of being "prejudiced" in such cases could verge on an assumption of bad faith. But again, it all depends on the specifics of each situation, and the context surrounding the editors' actions. ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 17:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   It's difficult to say if these cases were decided "correctly" without reading every word that was written, examining every diff, etc., and I haven't done that for any of these three cases. However, I've skimmed them and reviewed the final decisions. I believe the RHaworth case was the most clear-cut, because there was objective evidence of misuse of admin tools along with conduct complaints. The other two were closer to the borderline, and mainly hinged on subjective questions of civility and conduct. To my knowledge, neither Kudpung nor BrownHairedGirl were ever accused of misusing admin tools or abusing their power as admin. Therefore, their desysopping was essentially a statement that the community doesn't believe that they're capable of serving as role models for other editors. Judging these kinds of cases is far more subjective, and as I said above, I'd need to read every word and examine every diff in order to say whether or not I believe the decision was "correct". ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 22:28, 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?

   Outside of the types of exceptions you referenced in your question, I don't think that conduct issues should ever be handled by the WMF. I don't think it's their role, and I don't think there is any reason to believe that the en-wiki community is incapable of properly handling conduct issues ourselves. WP is largely a self-governing community, and the WMF must respect the history and heritage that has created and sustained this place. WMF's role should be to facilitate editors and help them be as effective as possible; not to overrule, domineer, or lord over WP. Any attempts by the WMF to assert their authority over the community should be extremely rare, and should usually be met with resistance, in my opinion. ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 22:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your answers, Scottywong, no follow-ups. SITH (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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^✉ 20:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I think these kinds of issues come down to judging whether a conduct issue is caused by a good-faith mistake, or if it's caused by bad faith behavior, gaming the system, or just general incompetence. In cases where an editor makes a good-faith mistake and is simply not familiar with a WP policy or guideline, we should educate them about those policies and send them on their way. Otherwise, if there is evidence that an editor has already been sufficiently warned and/or educated about the policy that they're violating, then they should generally be treated like other editors. ‑Scottywong| [speak] || 22:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

   (I answered this question in the above collapsed section, but I'll copy and paste my answer here for convenience.) Ideally, editors' preferred pronouns should generally be used and respected. In practice, on WP it's not always easy to determine someone's gender and/or preferred pronouns, because not everyone identifies their gender publicly, and the editors that do identify their gender don't always do it in the same way or in the same place. Personally, instead of searching around someone's userspace for hints, I usually consciously defer to neutral "they/them" pronouns unless I'm pretty sure. I don't think that good-faith editors who mistakenly use the wrong pronoun for an editor should be accused of harassment. However, if an editor explicitly corrects an incorrect pronoun and asks that different pronouns be used, and some editors refuse and continue to purposely use incorrect pronouns, I think that is pretty clearly uncivil behavior. ‑Scottywong| [comment] || 22:49, 24 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 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]

   I haven't followed the process closely, but from what I can tell, the document was drafted in an open and transparent way, so I don't see any problems with the way the WMF developed it. As I mentioned in my answer to George Ho's question above, I don't think that the WMF's document should be forced upon any wiki. When the document is finalized, it should be reviewed by the community, and there should probably be an RfC to determine if there is consensus within the en-wiki community to adopt all or part of the UCoC into our existing policies. As far as I can see, the UCoC is already largely duplicative of en-wiki policies, so if the final version doesn't change much compared to the draft version, it would be difficult for me to see any reason to not accept this policy. I don't see any reason that the UCoC would necessitate a change in the role of ArbCom. If WP policies are tweaked to match up with the UCoC, then ArbCom will simply need to be aware of those changes and ensure that all future cases take any such changes into consideration. ‑Scottywong| [comment] || 22:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Does Peter Turchin's theory of elite overproduction explain the patterns of behavior problems on Wikipedia? (Several patterns were described in Mapping Wikipedia and The left-wing bias of Wikipedia)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not familiar with that theory, and the two articles you linked don't appear to mention it at all. I don't understand the question enough to be able to answer it. From what I can gather, "elite overproduction" refers to the idea that there are too many highly educated people in America, and that's somehow causing some kind of social problem. I'm not sure how to relate that to Wikipedia, or which specific "behavior problems" you're referring to. In any case, I can't imagine any reason why it would be good to discourage highly educated people from participating here. ‑Scottywong| [soliloquize] || 06:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will explain my question more in hopes that you can answer it. For an overview of Turchin's theory, see Can History Predict the Future? in The Atlantic.

His theory posits that there are too many highly educated/qualified people for them to play ordinary, high-ranking roles in developed countries. As a result, more of them turn into counter-elites. Conflict increases as counter-elites attempt to get the commoners to revolt against the elite. An obvious outlet for them is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia in turn has its own elites--especially admins who got in early on. The counter-elites are the unblockables and the admins who support them.

One possibility is that the pattern discussed in the "Mapping Wikipedia" could be due to elite class people in particular states editing Wikipedia in an increased amount; the under-represented areas, were they to assert themselves more on Wikipedia, would quickly be considered counter-elite and face opposition from the existing elite on Wikipedia.

The pattern described in "The left-wing bias of Wikipedia" indicates that the fault lines on Wikipedia are similar to the ones in developed countries as a whole.

So as for my question--do you have a similar assessment of the situation, is it lacking in certain ways, or even flat-out wrong?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order to demonstrate that this questionable theory applies to Wikipedia (and I have serious doubts that it even applies to America), you'd have to show that there is an abundance of editors who are qualified to be admins, and a lack of available admin positions to be filled. Neither of these appear to be true. Qualified candidates pass RfA regularly and become admins. There is nothing stopping qualified editors from attempting an RfA (except for how brutal of a process it can sometimes be), and there is no limit imposed on the number of admins that Wikipedia can have. It's not like we have to wait for an admin to resign before an "admin slot" becomes available for someone else to fill. Sure, there are editors who want to be admins but have not been successful at RfA, but RfA candidates fail because they are judged to be unqualified for the position, not because there is a limit on how many "elites" Wikipedia can support. And, long-time editors who have had unsuccessful RfAs are understandably likely to have some bad feelings about that experience (I should know; my first RfA was unsuccessful), and those bad feelings might even grow into a desire to "revolt against the ruling elite class". But none of this has anything to do with WP having too many qualified editors and not enough high-ranking roles for them; it's simply people who are justifiably resentful of being rejected by the community. To be frank, my opinion is that thinking of Wikipedia in terms of "elites vs. counter-elites" is an unhelpful battleground mentality. I don't think WP would benefit from editors forming political parties and jockeying for power. Instead of looking for ways to find the myriad "fault lines" that divide editors, we should be looking for ways to fill in those cracks so that editors from all walks of life can participate in a collegial environment. ‑Scottywong| [confess] || 19:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the indefinite number of admin slots, and indefinite size of Wikipedia helps guard against Turchin-style elite overproduction. There is another subset of editors who have zero hope of achieving an RfA, so they don't even try. Yet becoming an unblockable is still within reach. Also the increased degree of rules & enforcement mechanisms in the current Wikipedia as opposed to the early Wikipedia could still serve as a stereotype threat type mechanism, whereby editors branded as rule-breakers embrace the identity and develop their skills until they become unblockables.

Turchin thinks that certain policy decisions can reduce elite overpopulation to prevent a counter-elite from gaining traction. On Wikipedia, one possibility could be a system where a randomly chosen jury serves as the audience for an RfA, allowing for easier adminship. ArbCom's size could be increased. Also, the website could be divided into multiple encyclopedias--such as one for controversial topics and one for topics which have seen little fighting. This would open up more elite-level leadership roles. There may be other possibilities.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

   There are many challenges facing Wikipedia, and that's not surprising, given how large Wikipedia has grown, how long it has been around, and how important it has become to society in general. It's difficult to pick out what the "biggest" challenge is, because there are many problems that are equally important. I'd probably have to go with editor retention. We have such a huge (and growing) number of articles, and relatively few (and not growing) number of editors writing and maintaining them. This is such a difficult problem to solve, and many people have put a lot of thought into it over the years. It's imperative that we continue to encourage people to volunteer their time here, make Wikipedia easy to understand and edit, and try to keep the environment friendly and comfortable for people. This is coming from someone that took a 4-year wikibreak (partially due to burning out on WP, and also due to other unrelated life changes). ‑Scottywong| [express] || 06:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Instant Comma (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Last year, you left this message on an editor's talk page. An AN thread ensued (link), which you left a single comment on. I'm not looking to restart any old drama over the specifics of the case, but I wonder whether, having had time to reflect on the situation, you would have acted differently?

   Of course, if I were a perfect person, I would never make bad or questionable decisions. That brief comment I posted a year ago was admittedly snarky, but in the grand scheme of things it was quite tame, and certainly not deserving of the level of attention it got at the drama board. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 07:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. This is probably a similar question like the one of AmandaNP, but with a focus on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (the best known terror organization in the world) and the Middle East. There have been for now quite some while editors there that see the territories liberated from ISIS by a global coalition consisting of 83 countries of which several are members of the NATO and the EU, as occupied. They keep this view up from 2015 until November 2020. Do you think such a POV should be tolerated on Wikipedia and if not what approach would you recommend?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   This is a question about a content dispute surrounding a very specific topic with which I'm not intimately familiar. I wouldn't want to give an opinion on this unless I had the opportunity to do a fair bit of research about it first. Since ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes, I don't think that any arbitrator's opinion on this topic is particularly relevant. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 17:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok, I was just trying to raise awareness about the most designated terrorist organization in the world who sexually subdued women on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Maybe some admin was made aware since not a single admin is looking into this yet.

2. Do you think it's acceptable for anyone to refer to another Wikipedian directly as a "prick", even if provoked and if you were so provoked, would you resort to tit-for-tat name-calling?

   I've never referred to another Wikipedian (i.e. someone who actively contributes to Wikipedia) as a "prick". Outside of Wikipedia, I reserve the right to refer to people as I see fit. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 05:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a theoretical question which you seem to have taken personally. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   It's rare that editors identify themselves using their real name, and rarer still that their self-identification would include religious names, titles, and honorifics. On Wikipedia, your real identity is often not easily verifiable, and usually doesn't matter. Even when editors reveal their real name, in my experience they are rarely referred to by their real name. In other words, if an editor with a username User:CoolWikiGirl identifies her real name as "Wendy Jones" on her user page, the vast majority of people will still refer to her as "CoolWikiGirl" in discussions, not "Wendy" (because referring to someone by their real name would be inappropriate unless you feel you have a personal relationship with them, in my opinion). Similarly, if someone identifies their real name as "Father John Smith", "Rabbi John Smith", "John Smith III", or "John Smith, Esq." or "His Majesty John Smith", the vast majority of people will still simply refer to them by their usernames. I don't think that the UCoC intends to give editors carte blanche to demand that other editors refer to them in any way they wish. I think it's sufficient for people to refer to others using their username (even if that username contains characters that are unfamiliar) and to use editors' preferred gender pronouns (if they have identified what their preferred pronouns are). There will always be edge cases and exceptions, but I interpret the spirit of the UCoC to be that we should refer to other contributors as respectfully as possible, and avoid inadvertently insulting contributors with the way that we refer to them, within reason. Omitting formal titles and honorifics should not normally be considered insulting, because Wikipedia is not a formal setting. Short answer: no, I don't think this principle should extend to religious names, titles, or honorifics. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Could you describe good rules of communication according to you, especially how a mediator can make two (or more) people being in a disagreement with each other to finally make a consensus?

   I think this is already covered quite well at WP:RCD. In general, focus on the content dispute, not the editors involved in the dispute; keep things calm and collegial, etc. A good starting point is often to list things that everyone agrees on first, and then move on to the disagreement. The overall goal is to understand the locus of the disagreement, understand why each side thinks they're right, and understand the evidence that supports each side's argument. If you do each of those three steps meticulously, completely, and in order, then it's usually very easy to come to a conclusion about whose argument is more convincing. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 09:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I think you answered your own question. Nearly all disputes on Wikipedia are fundamentally content disputes, because developing/maintaining content is the fundamental purpose here. Content is kind of the only thing there is to argue about here. ArbCom gets involved when poor conduct interferes with orderly resolution of content issues. If there is no evidence of poor conduct, then there is no reason for ArbCom to take a case. ‑Scottywong| [gab] || 17:20, 4 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) 16:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Ideally, I believe that ArbCom should consider the conduct of editors without regard to the quantity or quality of their content contributions. Policies should be applied equally to all editors; certain editors shouldn't be able to break the rules just because they are prolific content creators. That being said, I know that this isn't an ideal world, and things won't always work that way. No editor is perfect, and every editor will occasionally display poor judgment if they contribute here for a significant length of time, myself included. Editors (especially long-time editors) should be given some leeway to make occasional mistakes and learn from them. However, if an editor displays a clear pattern of inappropriate conduct and refuses to correct that conduct after being warned, then they should be appropriately sanctioned for it no matter how long they've been contributing to WP, or how many articles they've written, or what user rights they've amassed. ‑Scottywong| [gab] || 17:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you feel that the close of WP:ACERFC2020 was accurate in its determination that a consensus of the WP:community wished to limit the number of initial questions asked to ArbCom candidates to a maximum of two? Was the WP:RfC adequately advertised to the WP:community? --David Tornheim (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, while numerical voting on this restriction was relatively close, I'm willing to accept the way that RfC was closed, and I think that this restriction is reasonable and makes a lot of sense. Even with that restriction in place, I was still asked 37 questions, which I think is more than sufficient to assess my qualifications for this role. I'm not aware of the specific circumstances surrounding how that RfC was advertised to the community (and that's not something that one can easily dig through page histories to determine). However, a week before the RfC was closed, a user mentioned that they had left messages at WP:AN, WT:AC, and WP:VPP asking for people to participate in the RfC (see here). That seems like pretty wide advertisement to me. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 16:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Would you be willing to answer additional questions to these two on your talk page, since I am limited by that close to only asking two? The questions I would ask would be these --David Tornheim (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'm going to decline to answer these additional questions. Everyone else was limited to 2 questions, so I don't think it would be fair to make an exception for you. Additionally, the voting period is already 90% complete with only about 36 hours remaining in the election, the vast majority of votes have already been cast, and I've already answered 37 questions. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 16:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]