Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Thryduulf/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First a bit of context: The Fram case was an unusual and very complicated one, with the situation changing at various times as information became (publicly) available in drabs rather than all at once, etc. You left that comment on 10 September, which (from a quick review of the case pages) was between the two bouts of activity on the Proposed decision page from arbitrators, when there was still little consensus among them (the only people on en.wp who had seen the evidence from the Foundation) but everything that could be made public had been. You were advocating returning Fram's admin rights unconditionally because the community could always bring him back to arbcom should the need arise because they were removed out of process.
I disagree with you. I don't think that it matters whether the rights were remove out of process of not, because there was sufficient public evidence presented to merit a desysopping (and I commented to that effect on his subsequent RFA) in addition to anything that was in the private evidence (which I have not seen). While process can be important (it is at CSD for example), reverting an out of process action for the sole purpose of going through the correct process to achieve the exact same result almost never is - and this would not be an exception to that.
More broadly on the Fram case, I was firmly of the opinion at the start that the Foundation's ban/block should be allowed to stand unless and until there was evidence that it was incorrect. It later transpired that there was evidence it was incorrect, and at the point that became clear it was correctly reversed. This is the same principle behind the prohibition on administrators unilaterally overturning checkuser and oversight blocks without first consulting those people who can see the evidence used to make the decision.
Reading this back, I realise I've answered with the decision I would have taken and the my reasoning for that, rather than the exact words I would have used in a reply - if you would like to see that then let me know. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The name of my friend LouisAlain came up on meta, I suspect as a problematic area. Same case, same thread: subheader LouisAlain. Do you see anything of the "sufficient public evidence presented to merit a desysopping" quality there (because I don't)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand that comment - are you saying that Fram deleted some articles as copyright violations, even though the author was in hospital at the time? If so then, even if Fram knew the author was in hospital, the that doesn't matter - copyright violations should always be deleted, regardless of the author or their status. If you are saying they weren't copyright violations then that is a potential issue, but unless this was a repeated issue (and I'm not aware that it was) then this is not on its own something that should lead to a desysop. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this though - just because one thing an editor did wrong is not, on its own, worthy of a desysop does not indicate anything about whether other things they did (individually or cumulatively) were or were not worthy of a desysop. In the case of Fram, the principal issues were not individual actions when taken in isolation, but the cumulative effect of many actions over a long period of time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
English is not my fist language, sorry. No, I said I don't, I didn't see anything in Fram's actions that was "wrong", but the one who complained must have seen something, or would not have complained, no? I doubt the quality of the complaints.
Indeed the person complaining must have seen something, but without looking at the deleted articles they were talking about, Fram's expressed reason for deleting them and any discussion around that I'm not going to say anything about the quality of the specific complaint. As a whole, the public evidence provided in the case spanned a wide range in quality and relevance and so not all evidence would have had the same weight attached to it, indeed some explicitly had no bearing on the result as it was evidence of nothing more than someone misinterpreting a punny edit summary. So the quality of the specific complaint you talk about cannot be extrapolated to the quality of the totality of the evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Easier and last: which remedies would you have supported? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen the private evidence so I can base my views only on the incomplete public evidence, so I cannot say for definite in all cases. The public evidence supports remedy 1a but not 1c, 1b is borderline and so without having seen the private I offer no comment. I would oppose 2a based on the public evidence, and I agree with Joe regarding 2b so I would oppose that. I would have supported one or more of 2c, d or e but I'm not immediately sure which, as it depends in part on the nature of evidence I have not seen. Regarding remedy 3, I would have supported only as a second choice to desysopping. I agree completely with WTT regarding remedy 4 and PMC regarding remedy 5 and would have opposed those for the same reasons they gave. I would have supported remedy 6. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peacemaker67

What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?
The strongest arguments for and against accepting the case without prior ANI or comparable community attempts at resolution were those made by Opabinia and Rob respectively, in highly abbreviated form those are (against) that even if community dispute resolution fails, the evidence of what doesn't work is helpful to Arbcom in terms of formulating remedies vs (for) the benefits of a highly structured environment and the need to consider private evidence. On balance, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think the right decision was made as private evidence seems to have been important and one of the key issues why the dispute resolution that was tried hadn't worked was the manner in which it had been approached by some knowledgeable editors - something that I don't think would have changed had this come to ANI.
The unstructured nature of ANI is one of its biggest strengths and also one of its biggest weaknesses, especially when it comes to complex situations with a mix of content and conduct disputes. The only structured community venues are SPI and AE, neither of which has the scope to deal with an issue of this nature (nor should they), so in the absence of an alternative community venue arbcom is sometimes the only place these disputes can be resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voters: It turns out that Peacemaker67 has copy-pasted this statement of their views onto every candidate's page, regardless of their answer (which there is no evidence they have read). Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voters I read every single one before posting my comment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Inappropriate comment removed. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Nosebagbear

Once the new ARBCOM is in we'll be seeing an "RfC [with] focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.". Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed? Any particular concerns?
There is always going to be a balance to strike between privacy and protection from harassment on one hand and transparency and fairness on the other, and it's not always going to be an easy one to strike. I think the most important thing is that whatever arises has community consensus. Personally I hope that whatever emerges is a situation that allows all parties to feel they will be treated fairly, but I don't have any brilliant ideas for how to achieve that unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Discretionary Sanctions are overly/underly authorised (and utilised, which is distinct)? How would you want to change it if you became an Arb?
I feel the system works well in most cases, and I see no pressing need for wholescale reform. As with any remedy though, I think the Committee should be willing to listen to suggestions and requests for adding/removing/changing/clarifying/tweaking aspects of either the process or the scope of individual authorisations. The changes this year to the awareness rules (allowing pre-emptive awareness), the clarification of The Troubles authorisation scope, and the merging of the Balkans and Eastern Europe authorisations show that this generally works. Hopefully the outcome of the PIA4 case will be a similar success story (but obviously it's too soon to know). Knowing whether discretionary sanctions are still needed, or whether the scope is right is something that those working in the topic area will know far better than arbitrators.
Regarding any under utilisation of sanctions, that's something that is down to the admins in the topic area in the first instance, but as always if a remedy is not working then the Committee should take another look at it - but it cannot do so without being asked first.
I'm unsure if I've actually answered your question, but without your being more specific I don't know what else I can say. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rschen7754

On 13 June you wrote the following (some emphasis added) I do not see that the WMF enforcing the terms of use on a WMF site to be in any way unacceptable. The will community [sic] will always be lesser than the will of the WMF - whether you like it or not that is the only way that it can be unless every member of the community is qualified in California law and in possession of all evidence (public and private) regarding all matters (which is, for obvious reasons, impossible. If you do not want to contribute in accordance with the terms of use - which explicitly allow the WMF to enforce them as they see fit - then you are under no obligation to do so. Is this a position that you still hold and/or would like to clarify? --Rs chen 7754 06:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a position I still hold. The WMF are not infallible, and I hope lessons have been learned on their part from the Fram affair, but while we can seek to influence the TOU it is ultimately theirs to enforce as they see fit. As editors we have exactly four options - (1) accept this and contribute in accordance with the terms of use, (2) contribute in a manner contrary to the TOU and accept the consequences, (3) take our ball and go somewhere else, (4) fork the project.Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ETA Where matters can be dealt with locally that is almost always going to be preferable, but not everything can be, especially as there is not a 1:1 correspondence between things that are a breach of the terms of use and things that are a breach of English Wikipedia policies, and there will always be some evidence that cannot be shared (the Foundation has no choice but to follow US and California law for example). There also always needs to be the possibility for the WMF to take action where local processes have failed (e.g. if an absolute majority of en.wp arbitrators refused to take action against someone who was openly and intentionally harassing others). Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
I'd say the biggest problem is that we need a body to be the final step in dispute resolution, but unless and until someone can fix human nature there is not a lot we can do about that.
After that the biggest problem is that its a committee of elected volunteers from different backgrounds and cultures, with different philosophies, based in different time zones. Despite making decisions hard to reach this is also one of its greatest strengths. The only part of that is even worth considering changing is "volunteer" - and the arguments I've heard very strongly favour volunteers to such an extent that any proposal to change would be snow closed with consensus against.
The committee is not perfect and I'm sure that there are small things that need to change (timeliness of response being one) but many, perhaps most, of these will in part depend on how the individual members on the Committee fit together, and what the behind-the-scenes process are like (I'm sure their not identical to how they were in 2015) so it's difficult to propose any specific remedies when you can only see the symptoms. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Banedon

What is it about BU_Rob13's, Cwmhiraeth's, and my behavior in this ARCA that you find "frankly disgusting"? Would prefer an answer for all three of us, with quotes from what we wrote if possible.
Regarding BU_Rob13 and the situation overall, the answer comes from the line immediately above the one you quote: "@BU_Rob13: a complete inability to enforce a sanction that has been repeatedly violated. Once again we meet the crux of the issue: there has been consensus after consensus from uninvolved users and administrators that the sanction has not been violated, and yet somehow those with an axe to grind cannot accept this and assume there must be some vast conspiracy to protect TRM rather than the more obvious explanation that the sanction wasn't violated." Also illustrative is discussion regarding the "groupies" comment (read Black Kite's section for the best summary of this)
Cwmhiraeth's behaviour on that page cannot be summed up in a single representative quote, you need to read their statement and the comments about them made by Dweller. Basically Cwmhiraeth accused TRM of lying (elsewhere, not in that discussion) and repeatedly refused provide any evidence to back that up. When called on that in this discussion they flat out denied that they had accused TRM of lying, even when presented with the evidence.
Regarding yourself, it's similar to Rob - the assumption of bad faith and the refusal to consider that a repeated consensus disagreeing with your view might mean you are in the wrong. Note also the need for WBG to call you out for baiting TRM. There is no one thing you said that I can quote out of context to demonstrate this though, as it was whole of your behaviour, in combination with the totality of the behaviour others, that disgusted me. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this case request [1] had not ended because Eric Corbett was indef'ed, would you have voted to accept it? Why or why not?
I would very likely have voted to accept a case with a scope something like "interactions by and surrounding Eric Corbett" (but hopefully with a better title than that) to review (a) Eric's behaviour, (b) the behaviour of other people towards Eric, (c) the behaviour of third parties towards each other in disputes involving Eric, and (d) whether the current restrictions are/were fit for purpose. This would be explicitly without presupposing wrongdoing on the part of anyone, but given the amount of community time and energy disputes around Eric take up and the number of allegations flying around it falls very much into the category of an intractable dispute the community is unable to resolve. The timing though was really unfortunate as this would be a massive case that would need to be very strongly managed (by arbs and clerks) to prevent it getting out of hand, but it came when the committee really did not have the time or energy to deal with something of that scale.
It's probably worth reiterating here my philosophies that no one editor is bigger than the project, that being a good content creator does not excuse bad behaviour, and that anyone intentionally baiting (or attempting to bait) another editor should face the same sanction the baitee would do if the baiting was successful, even if it wasn't. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you were an arbitrator and I filed an ARCA (or AE, whichever is more appropriate) complaining that TRM thanked me for asking the question above about BU_Rob13's, Cwmhiraeth's, and my behavior, even though I had explicitly told him never to thank me for any reason, what would you do? I'm asking this because based on the two answers you gave above, the full range of responses from "you are assuming bad faith, and I would find your request disgusting" to "he's attempting to bait you, and anyone doing that should face the same sanction" is still possible.
I can see from the log TRM did thank you but not what for, so for the purposes I'm assuming that it was for this edit. There is nothing in TRM's restrictions that could even remotely be construed as applying to thanking editors (except possibly regarding edits directly and clearly connected to the DYK process, which your edits to this page are not), and nor does he have an interaction ban with you. This means that this would definitely not be a matter for AE. At ARCA you would need to be very clear what question you were actually asking, but assuming it would be something like "is this a violation of his restrictions?" the answer would definitely be a simple "no". If you were asking, should it be, then again I'd say probably not unless you can show that this behaviour is repeated (it doesn't seem to be - TRM has thanked about 450 times in 2019, and only once have you been the recipient) and harmful - and even then we'd need to be clear that TRM intentionally thanked you against your wishes - the request was three years ago it's not impossible he had simply forgotten, it might have been accidental (e.g. click the wrong thanks link - I've done this in the past, there is no way to unthank someone. Although looking at TRM's thanks log this seems unlikely as it was 5 minutes after he thank me for my reply to you here, and 1 minute before he thanked Newyorkbrad for something and NYB hasn't edited this page) and judged that contacting you to explain that would just make things worse. If it was intentionally done against your known wishes, then I have to say that it was a pretty silly thing to have done but appropriate remedy for a one-off instance like that would be a warning not to do it again. If it was repeated after the warning then a sanction might be warranted. As for baiting - that doesn't make sense: nobody can be baited into breaching a restriction they are not under, and the only credible thing it could be baiting you into doing is being uncivil towards TRM - but it doesn't make any sense that he would do that?
Ultimately then the outcome would be to remind The Rambling Man that you do not want to be thanked by them and that if they continue to do so then you may be asking ANI for a sanction and/or ARCA to formalise it as a restriction. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've literally spent five minutes of my life trying to establish why I would have thanked this user for such a thing. Or anything. Given there's nothing at all of any note or interest in this user's edits that I am interested in in any sense whatsoever, I guess it was a simple misclick before I thanked NYB for something of real note. I unreservedly apologise to this user for any harm they may have felt during this moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newslinger

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
Never. Discretionary sanctions work with regards to the content of edits, undisclosed paid editing (disclosed paid editing is perfectly acceptable, absent other problems) is an aspect of a contributor. If an undisclosed paid editor is making edits that would be acceptable if an unpaid editor made them, then it would be impossible for a discretionary sanction to solve anything (and it's frankly debatable what problem would need solving). If the undisclosed paid editor is making edits that would not be acceptable if an unpaid editor made them, then that the editor being paid is not relevant and normal responses to the unacceptable edits should be used - in some cases that might include discretionary sanctions, but only in the same way that they might be appropriate for an unpaid editor.
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
Two-factor authentication (2FA) is one method of ensuring the security of an account that works well for some people in some situations but it is not suitable for everybody in every situation. For example, I use it to secure this account (Thryduulf) but not my alternate account (Awkward42), although for a brief period (about a week iirc) around this time last year I had to temporarily disable it while the only device I have cable of providing the second factor (my mobile phone) was away for a warranty repair, and there may (or may not) be a short time I have to disable it when I next upgrade my phone. The support provided by the WMF in the event that someone (especially those who are not the most tech-savvy) needs to get back into their account without their usual second device for whatever reason does not (and possibly cannot) scale to the level required if even every en.wp administrator had it enabled. For these reasons ArbCom should do no more than endorse it as an available option, perhaps recommending it to those for whom it is the best solution. Risker has written more extensively and more capably about this than I can on several occasions when proposals have surfaced and I strongly recommend reading and understanding what she says before any making any proposal related to 2FA. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky caldron

There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be treated?
As someone who improves the encyclopaedia in ways other than starting new articles or bringing existing ones to FA I'm very keenly aware of this perceived bias, whether it is an actual bias I don't know either way but but there certainly isn't a bias in favour of gnomes with an abrasive personality. I do not regard being a content creator as being in any way deserving of more latitude for bad behaviour than someone whose primary contributions are say maintaining templates or assisting at the help desk, and no one editor is bigger than the project. Everyone who ends up at arbcom (or indeed involved in dispute resolution at any stage) deserves a fair trial and deserves to be treated equally and I so I intend to do my best to give them that. I am human though so I can't promise perfection, but if I am elected and you perceive someone at arbitration being treated unfairly (either favourably or unfavourably) leave a comment explaining why you think that (with evidence if possible) and I will certainly take a look (I can't promise I'll agree with you in every case of course). Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf I think that it is bad timing to throw in a question for ACE2020 about numbers of questions at ACE electons when we are still in the voting stage of ACE2019. Why did you not wait until the election was over? What is your motive for placing that question today?
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020‎ is nothing more than a list of things to discuss in the pre-election RFC next year. It is completely irrelevant to, and has no bearing on, the 2019 elections, so I honestly do not understand why you think it is bad timing (are you maybe conflating my questions with Kudpung's?). My motivation for asking was simply reading some of the questions asked to some other candidates (not me) and seeing some that I felt excessive or trivial (I was reading through the question pages to choose who I will vote for). I don't know whether I support a limit or not, but I felt suggesting it as something to ask the community about next year would be useful. Collating questions for next year when they are thought of so they don't get forgotten is the entire point of that page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from 28bytes

Any regrets about your comments in this discussion?
There are two aspects to that discussion, my comments about Fram and my comments about Floq. I'm not sure which you are interested in so I will address both.
Regarding Fram, I think I would have used "hounded" rather than "harassed" to avoid the connotations of (potentially) criminal behaviour, but other than that no I have no regrets. Fram was, prior to the ban in June, previously interaction banned by the Foundation for hounding/harassing - that was and is public and there was no evidence made public at any point that this was incorrect, so describing Fram as a person who has engaged in that behaviour is correct.
Regarding Floq, I have no regrets at all - nobody, let alone a crat, should be reverting any action taken by the Foundation unless and until there is evidence that the action was incorrect and they have either seen that evidence themselves or the evidence is public. In this case when we (the community) got that evidence it turned out the sanction was incorrect but that in no way justifies or excuses the actions of those who took matters into their own hands before they had the information. Imagine how it would look if it had turned out that the sanction was actually lenient. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WereSpielChequers

Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
I can think of circumstance where giving precise details may not be possible, but what can be given should be so as to give the person as much of an understanding of the reason and expectations as possible. If it isn't possible for the person to understand where their behaviour needs modification then arbcom (or whoever placed the block) reassess what information can be given, possibly in discussion with others while keeping the person blocked updated (e.g. "We can't tell you anything else yet, but we're working on it and will get back to you by Thursday.") or some other way of getting information to them found - this will obviously depend on the exact details of the case and why information cannot be shared, but maybe if the person concerned were to sign a legal document saying that they will not share it further (although this would obviously be a very different circumstance than applied in the Fram case). Alternatively it might be the case that there is enough information that a reasonable person could easily infer all the necessary information, but the blocked person cannot or will not do so - in that situation then a competence is required block may be the only option (I don't believe this would have applied in Fram's case). I don't imagine not being able to give details will come into play very often, and even when it does it's most likely to be a case that we can share the nature of the complain but not the identity of the person/people that made it, which in most cases should be sufficient for a competent editor to understand what the issue is.
In all cases where it is not possible to share the full details of what behaviour a user should desist from, more latitude should be given on their return - just a little bit in the case of someone given nearly everything, a lot more if they could only be given vague generalities. This might require an instruction that admins should report all blocks of this user to the committee, or to consult the committee before placing any non-urgent block, but that is easily doable. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
That depends on what you mean by "the facts of a case" and in what way and to what extent were they involved and how broadly you define "related". If the arbitrator had a minor roll in one small aspect of the case (e.g. protecting one of the pages in a widespread acrimonious content dispute following a request at RFPP) then that's very rarely going to require recusal. If the arbitrator closed a non-contentious RFC which later became the focus of a dispute over interpretation then recusal probably isn't necessary just for that, but they may feel differently. If they have previously been actively engaged in trying to resolve the dispute but not involved in the dispute itself then maybe - if any of the suggested remedies were felt to be controversial or if others not involved thought they weren't neutral in any way then definitely yes, otherwise I probably wouldn't absent a request to, but I might sound out my colleagues for an outside opinion. More involved than that, then almost certainly yes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?
Generally yes, if the charges are sufficiently credible that they require an answer then the person accused should be given sufficient time to answer them. However, what "sufficient time" means will depend on the context - what is the nature of the charges, are they actually different to others already made, etc. and there may come a point where things have to move on regardless - arbitration is there to end a dispute after all and the committee should not permit systems to be gamed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?
If an arbitrator is presenting significant evidence they should generally be recused and presenting evidence as everyone else (I'll likely be doing this if I'm elected and the portals dispute reaches the committee during my term) so the issue wouldn't arise. If however you are talking about things presented during the workshop or PD phases (e.g. because it's newly happened or newly discovered) then generally yes the accused should be permitted the opportunity to respond, although if it's just more examples of the same type of factual thing that has been brought up previously it may not be necessary - say the dispute focuses on excessive reverts of IP editors on articles related to France, and the "new evidence" is examples of the accused repeatedly reverting IPs editing French Guyana, even though that specific article hadn't been discussed before it was no different to their actions at Martinique and Corsica that had been. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Caker18

Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
Off the top of my head the best I can point you to is my work as an Arb in 2015. None of the recent disputes I've been involved with mediating have been ones that can be characterised as A vs B where both were hostile to the other. There have been some at RfD and ITN where one person has been hostile to others, or where one person has felt others are being hostile towards them but they weren't. In many of the very many portal deletion discussions I was involved in earlier this year I tried to be a mediating influence in discussions by presenting my arguments rationally but there were many more than two parties there and various ones at various times have been hostile to some or all others (including sometimes those (partially) agreeing with them about something) and I was not primarily acting as a mediator there as I had opinions about the content (if I am elected I will recuse from that topic area it comes before the committee). I was involved in attempting to reach a resolution regarding QuackGuru at ANI relatively recently, but again there were more than two parties involved and most of them were not hostile towards each other. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SQL

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
For me to be proud of a contribution to a discussion like that it would need to have been either a contentious or complex one where I provided a key analysis or something like that which explained the issues and/or resolved an impasse or something else significant like that, but it's been quite a while since I was involved in a discussion that had the potential for that and longer since I did it - I've never been very active in block or unblock discussions, and the most recent one someone had already explained the issue before I saw the discussion. The most recent unblock discussion of any significance I was involved with was Richie333, where although I made the clearly right decision (I closed the discussion and unblocked) I made it a bit early. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SN54129

What aspect of your approach, if any, would you have changed in the Portals debacle of March this year?
In hindsight I would like to have been more forceful at ensuring that administrative action against all those engaging in battleground behaviour, personal attacks, etc. received administrative attention at the time so it was not still ongoing. As I'm involved as an editor this would not have been taking administrative action myself of course, and obviously I'll be recusing if I'm elected and it comes before the committee during my term. Beyond that, and perhaps not letting myself get bullied out of the discussions, I don't think there is anything I would have changed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question to you above on the 2018 GWE arbitration case, with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden? (Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity, Thryduulf, now corrected)
Initial confused reply: @Serial Number 54129: From a quick look (I don't have time for more now) it seems Peacemaker asked several questions (and made many more comments) at various points during that case, please could you be more specific about which one you are referring to? Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After clarification of question: Peacemaker's question was about the lack of prior dispute resolution such as ANI. ANI can be a good place to attract outside views on behavioural issues (the focus of the GWE case) but it's not for content disputes (RFCs are generally an appropriate venue for this), which was the context of the arbitrator comments (while deciding on content is outside the committee's remit, it can advise on conduct issues around content disputes) so I don't see the two as particularly related. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Praxidicae

What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
My answer is different for Wikipedia and Wikimedians. I don't have a problem with anyone discussing Wikipedia, as long as no private information is disclosed and things like WP:BEANS are kept in mind. Banned editors may (indeed probably are) still readers and them pointing out some problems with articles that need fixing is a good thing for the encyclopaedia. For example I recall several years ago one banned (at the time at least) editor commenting on a Facebook post that an obscure article had seemingly been vandalised without this being spotted. I can't remember the person or the article but it was fixed thanks to their input. Banned some editors also have valuable insights into the dispute resolution process.
Discussing Wikimedians however is a very different matter, and I really can't see any justification for advanced permission holders discussing other Wikimedians with banned editors, especially those who have been for doxing, harassment or similar. Obviously we cannot (and should not) prohibit anyone talking about themselves, nor about mutual friends or famous people who happen to be Wikimedians, but this should not be in the context of their on-wiki edits, role, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [2]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
As long as the committee is comprised of humans there is no way to ensure that all members are active all of the time. Even if all members did arbcom as a full-time paid job there would always be times when they had to become inactive for a period - holidays, family, health, etc. While the first of those could be planned to minimise the overlap between them, but none of the other factors could be. As just one example, at the end of August last year I injured my back getting out of bed in a way that meant I required a major operation and a week in hospital - things like that are unpredictable.
As for your suggestion of requiring prospective arbitrators to describe how they will manage their responsibilities, firstly I don't understand how it would help? Secondly it seems like it would require candidates to share quite detailed aspects of their personal lives, I'm far more open about my off-wiki life than many people and I find this idea uncomfortable. I'm happy to say that I believe I have sufficient time to devote to arbcom business, based on things I can foresee, but there will be short periods I will necessarily be inactive (for example there is a high probability I will be on a family holiday for about a week some time in July or August, possibly without an internet connection.).Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Iffy

While a lot of people are focussing (rightly) on the Fram case, I want to ask you about the Rama case from earlier this year. Would you have voted to desysop Rama? Feel free to explain your answer (especially if your answer is not a simple Yes or No).
Yes. Rama deliberately used his administrative tools in a way that was directly contrary to three very recent community consensuses (that he must have been aware of due to the creation protection at the very least), and did so without even attempting discussion. I'm trying hard to think of any circumstances in which this would not merit a desysop, but all I've come up with is a user with a very large number of recent, (almost) faultless admin actions who (almost) immediately realised their actions were a mistake and self-reported themselves to AN or ANI for the community to consider their action and explaining their views openly and fully. Rama had essentially no recent track record of admin actions (good or bad), had a history of poor admin actions, did not self-report and engaged in very poor behaviour when defending them. There is no question in my mind that a desysop is the appropriate action. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gadfium

In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?
I don't anticipate any major changes - I don't recall any after I was unsuccessful in the 2015 elections for example (but I've not looked). I'm fully committed to the project and the movement so yes I'll continue building the encyclopaedia and I'll continue my work as a oversighter. I don't know exactly which area I'll increase my activity on - RfD is always a possibility, maybe I'll get back to fixing instances of "This website is for sale" and similar appearing in reference titles, fixing references on old deaths in month pages (e.g. Deaths in January 2006) is another thing I could return to. If I do feel particularly disillusioned with Wikipedia for a bit then chances are my contributions at a sister project will increase (most likely one or more of Wiktionary, Commons, Wikidata or Wikivoyage). I'll have been around for 15 years at the end of next month, you don't get rid of me that easily! Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from 174.91.115.150

Did you believe there was a need for the Arbitration Committee to write their letter to the WMF during the Fram incident: Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram/Archive_12#Open_letter_from_the_Arbitration_Committee_to_the_WMF_Board?
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: While you could quibble about "need" in the absolutely strictest sense of that word, it was clearly in the best interests of the project for the Committee to show leadership and reflect the concerns of the editing community with and towards the WMF in general/Trust and Safety in particular, so it was at the very least a very highly desirable thing to do at that point in time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you had been on the committee at that time, would you have signed the letter? Why or why not? 174.91.115.150 (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what was publicly known at that time, yes, for the reasons given in my answer to your first question - sending the letter at that time was the right thing to do to start healing the rift between the community and the WMF. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Volunteer Marek

Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?
That's an interesting idea, and my first thoughts are that while I'm not sure it would work exactly like that, it's a good place to start from to develop something that will (which I guess was your intention). Particularly I'm not sure about a dedicated spokesperson, as long as someone provides the report. Assuming things work roughly how they did in 2015, it would probably be easiest for one or more arbs to draft it on arbwiki as things happen, then every 2-4 weeks tidy it up and paste a copy to WP:ACN or somewhere like that which is something any arb could do. There would need to be some thought about how to deal with progress reports in cases where an arbitrator is recused but (without knowing how things are currently done) I don't imagine that to be a show-stopper. Having a dedicated spokesperson may be undesirable as the task could get lost if the spokesperson is recused or inactive. The community would also need to accept that the level of detail that can be shared will differ from case to case, and regarding some things may be nothing more than numbers ("Since the last report the committee has received six block appeals, 2 were declined, 1 was referred to UTRS, 1 (user:Example) was accepted (see <link to ACN> for details). and 2 are still in progress." where "in progress" could mean being discussed among arbs and/or waiting to hear back from the person appealing. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jehochman

How do you feel about the right of reply and do you think this principle should be applied to Wikipedia biographies and/or Wikipedia dispute resolution, and if so, how?
In terms of biographies, article subjects or their representatives can (and do) discuss matters on the talk page or contact OTRS volunteers (see Wikipedia:Contact us#Article subjects) and information can be added, removed or corrected as appropriate based on our policies (WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:DUE, etc). Interviews with/articles written for third party publications also serve as a way to reply to (perceived) inaccuracies in a Wikipedia article and these can be used as sources for changes to the article. None of this is anything to do with the Arbitration Committee though unless there is a behaviour dispute around changes made or requested by an article subject that earlier steps in the dispute resolution process have been unable to handle.
Regarding dispute resolution, I can think of only two situations where someone does not have a full right of reply to accusations made against them and one where they have the right of reply in the form only of an appeal:
(1) When someone has been blocked, with talk page access removed and they have been blocked from further appeals by email and UTRS. This only happens after they have had their right of reply during proceedings and have exhausted their available appeals, and it is time limited (usually 6 months and almost never longer than 12 months, although sometimes these periods apply from the date of the last socking not the date of the last appeal).
(2) When, for privacy reasons the details of the accusations cannot be shared with the person accused. In these situations though the accused does have a partial right of reply - i.e. they can respond to the details that can be shared with them. This is very rare though, and per my other answers on this page the arbitration committee (or WMF if they are the ones dealing with matters) should share as much as they possibly can, and in some (hopefully almost all) cases the accused will be able to know or infer enough that there is very little difference in their response.
(3)Where there is incontrovertible evidence of a bright line rule being broken the right of reply can be limited to an appeal - most often this is sockpuppetry or 3RR violations, but it can also happen for things like clearly unambiguous harassment.
In all other aspects of dispute resolution, all parties have the full right of reply in the form of participating in the dispute resolution process - although sometimes this will be off-wiki. This doesn't of course guarantee that others will agree with their reply, nor that they will get a response every time (although concerns should at least be acknowledged the first time they are raised, repeatedly making the same point again and again when it has already been addressed should not). Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed reply. There is indeed much to consider. Jehochman ^Talk 03:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Robert McClenon

Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?
Assuming there is actually a dispute and that it isn't very obviously premature (I've seen requests where even posting on a talk page hasn't been tried), then I'd be looking to see that the dispute is within arbcom's scope and the community was unable to resolve it.
This means that it needs to be about behaviour in some way, either directly or indirectly (e.g. one user's behaviour preventing the establishment of consensus), and that either all previous dispute resolution has failed or definitely would fail; or there is private evidence that the community cannot see which would affect the outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?
Without having seen the private evidence I cannot give a firm answer, but based on what is public some action against Fram was justified, but not necessarily the action that was taken. However, the Foundation's options appear to have been (a) an unappealable full lifetime ban from all projects, (b) an unappealable time-limited ban from some but not all projects, and (c) no action. Given only those three choices I think option (b) was justified, but the real failings were (1) having only those options available (e.g. no way of delegating to en.wp), and (2) pretty much all communication about the actions taken and not taken. I understand that the Foundation are working on resolving these issues, among others, but given that (AIUI) the detail doesn't exist yet it's too soon to know whether that be sufficient or not. The English Wikipedia community also needs to get significantly better at dealing with harassment (so the situation of people complaining to the WMF because en.wp hasn't resolved the problem doesn't exist), and the forthcoming RFC will at least help with that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?
Without knowing why there is such a long delay it's difficult to know what will solve it, but currently arbitrators being overworked is part of the issue and (assuming sufficient candidates get elected) that will be significantly reduced from January (and there isn't anything that can realistically be done before then). More generally, I am very much in favour of arbs using the workshop page to workshop (sorry, I can't think of an appropriate synonym) the proposed decision, and this will probably reduce the delays between the workshop and PD phases of a case. Increased communication will also help the community understand why any delays are happening (see my candidate statement and Volunteer Marek's idea for periodic reports - link in his question above). Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
ArbCom's role is in enforcing the policies of the English Wikipedia, and where a provision of our policies matches a provision of the terms of use then enforcement of one is enforcement of the other. Where a provision of the terms of use has no matching provision in English Wikipedia policy then enforcement should be the sole responsibility of the Foundation. If the community wants Arbcom to enforce such a provision then it needs to first enact a matching local policy.
Regarding paid editing, what the community should be concerned about is the neutrality of articles and the behaviour of editors. As long as content is neutral, due, and and otherwise appropriate per the content policies, who writes that content is not relevant (beyond ensuring correct attribution of course). On the other hand if the content is bad (non-neutral, undue, etc) then it shouldn't be in the article, regardless of who put it there or why. Having a conflict of interest (being paid is only one example of this) does not mean that content you add is inherently bad or that your opinions about what the article should say are inherently wrong - it just means that you are less likely to be able to determine what is and is not neutral and due. Accordingly our guidelines recommend getting other editors without a COI regarding that content to check. Arbcom would only have a role in any of this if there was a behavioural dispute that the community was unable to resolve. Whether any or all parties to that dispute were paid or unpaid would almost certainly be irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Grillofrances

What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?
Communication. While there are other important aspects like timeliness, there are always going to be things outside the control of the committee that prevent something happening when desired, but effective communication of what is happening and why (or at least as much as can be said) mitigates at least some of the frustration people feel. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]