Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Izno

Izno

I am, with some trepidation, submitting a candidacy for the Arbitration Committee elections. I have been an editor here for nearly 15 years, an administrator for two of those, and an interface administrator for almost exactly a year. Like a few others, I did not intend to run this year and am personally doing so to help ensure a full-sized and effective committee going into the next term. Perhaps it is obvious from filing a candidacy, but I would be willing to serve on the committee even if other more-qualified candidates should run. I would bring my offline experience with systems design and engineering, so hopefully I'd be a collaborative committee member willing to consider creative solutions in the specific areas that ArbCom handles. As regards the future of ArbCom, I have been casually interested in devolving to the community some of the policy controls that ArbCom has put in place and which it has reserved to itself, so if there's time for a project, that might be one I would be interested in.

I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data. My alternative accounts are IznoBot, IznoRepeat, and IznoPublic.

• Izno (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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

---

Questions from Mikehawk10

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

   For public evidence (which should be the majority if not entirety...), 'clear and convincing' looks just as reasonable as 'preponderance', since the differentiator between the two appears to be how much the individual's story can be believed... and I find it difficult to delineate the two where the evidence is public. Private evidence seems another matter, and for that I think I tend more toward 'clear and convincing', at least after examination... (so, question 2...)

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

   When I look at this question, I see the thorns of WP:FRAMBAN and how an organization should deal with claims of harassment, or the possibility of such should the evidence become public. Maybe that's an outlier case, but I think an answer to the question of how you verify the truthiness of some private evidence needs to consider that there may not be additional paths beyond (dis)trusting the submitter. Beyond that edge case, asking for corroboration from the other individuals in the evidence seems like a good next step, and possibly asking for intent or basis for actions taken as implicated in the evidence.

   I assume this is essentially how ArbCom operates today, based on what I've seen on WT:ACN when actions have been taken based on private evidence.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Gerda Arendt

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

   I will decline to speak too directly on Sarah's caring message. I am saddened we haven't seen RexxS since the case. I considered him one of my wiki-friends and hope he comes back some time. Would I have !voted to accept or decline? Unfortunately, I think I would have !voted to accept the case given the statements on the requests page. Though Valeree's issues were a clear cause of the request, there are enough diffs at the request to indicate concern with RexxS's administrative work and temperament.

Questions from Sdrqaz

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

   The data is interesting, but doesn't seem meaningful on a case-by-case basis. ArbCom is expected to be the last resort; my observation is that most of the cases it has accepted on the WP:ADMINCOND dimension have been appropriately accepted.

   On an aside, that table might meaningfully be extended for cases where ADMINCOND was alleged and ArbCom declined to take the case, as well as the associated counts of votes for both acceptance and declining, as well as the vote for the sanctions (whether declined sanction or final) after an accepted case. That seems like better data to use to come to a meaningful conclusion on this point.

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

   You've got me wondering where Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC went now and whether that's been worked in the past year. (I realize that's just outside 2021; if it must be from 2021, let me know.)

6. (Follow-up to Q1) Your answer was mainly addressed to the preamble of the question, but not the question itself. Could you give further detail to your thoughts on the Committee's approach to desysop cases?

   "Has the Committee done a good job?" is the only way I can interpret the question meaningfully. By and large, I think it has. I look at the list of names on Maxim's page and the best I can remember is that I agreed with the final decisions in the majority of the cases as they occurred (and for when I was significantly cognizant of ArbCom matters, which is maybe the past 5-6 years). Memory says that there were patterns of misbehavior that indicated a social unfitness under WP:ADMINCOND (and for a specific few, tools unfitness or at least social unfitness on top of tools unfitness).

8. (Follow-up to Q2) In the interest of fairness for the other candidates, I think it would be best to limit decisions to only 2021.

   I see no inactions out of the declined case requests that I would name as an issue. I didn't like how RexxS resolved, but I also see the case as a reasonable case (at least in its request; I didn't follow beyond that beyond knowing that he is presently absent), so that doesn't feel like a good answer. None of the other taken cases jump out at me. For someone without access to internal ArbCom communications, that leaves instances like the handful of unblocks/bans this year that have caused some pain and misery, but it would be academic for me to say I disagreed with those since I took most pages off my watchlist earlier this year, and anyway, the community sorted them out at the end of the day. I can say I got an IRL earful from Prax about the Prax-Ritchie motion, but I don't per se disagree with it (I just think that it wasn't a meaningful amendment; does that count as disagreement?). So, no, I cannot point to something that meets the spirit of your question from this year.

Questions from George Ho

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

   I applaud it as an effort to ensure a basic standard of decorum on Wikimedia projects. I am hopeful that it can/will be used as a tool for issues like those that have afflicted Croatian Wikipedia and as a tool to show new or smaller language wikis the behavior we generally expect from our members.

   Conversely, I am leery of its potential applications to wikis with decent-if-not-perfect dispute resolution systems. Particularly, I read it when it was published and was worried that there were rules in it that English Wikipedia doesn't do a good job enforcing or which are today wedge issues, if even we have rules on certain points. (I haven't done a cross-check of the specifics to at least say which of the latter might exist, but I know that French Wikipedia has, as an example.)

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

   I've been most sensitive to the outcomes of the most-recent bot-operator related cases (Magioladitis and Rich), as these are closely connected to the areas I've worked in. For example, while I respect our policy on WP:COSMETIC changes, I think a lot of good could be done to regularize wikitext, making it easier for newcomers, even though those changes would not make a difference in the final rendered output. (There have been some other bot-related cases that did not reach ARBCOM [yet] that I have looked on with similar wariness.) Those cases on the books are one of a few dampers on such a dream world for me.

Questions from Kudpung

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

   "Should ArbCom care about what's said by uninvolved editors on the talk pages of a case or on the case request?"? I don't see harm in it, but if it's actually useful to the case, it probably deserves to be on the evidence or drafting pages (modulo evidence submitted at the request).

   "Should ArbCom care about what's said by uninvolved editors on the case pages?"? Yes. I think it probably aids the committee's weighing of possible sanction for the parties to the case with respect to the interests of the larger community. And of course, ArbCom members themselves who are sufficiently involved recuse such that (ideally) ArbCom itself is a body uninvolved with the parties, so I'm not sure there's a way of getting around having uninvolved community members' thoughts leaning a direction on the case.

   Let me know if I didn't answer the question completely (or at all).

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

   No. Due process is generally important.

Thank you for your answers Izno. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from The Most Comfortable Chair

2. How will you go about "devolving to the community some of the policy controls that ArbCom has put in place and which it has reserved to itself"? And which exact policy controls would that be?

   Ah, someone asked me that exact question in private almost immediately after I published it.

   The first rule of interest would be the ratification rule itself; I like to think our systems for generating consensus has evolved past the point where we have a need for the rather arbitrary quorum we have today. The second area of interest might be the whole set of procedures and whether those should be subject solely to the arbitration committee's consensus. As I said though, this was a casual interest, and I think I've already added a link elsewhere on this page of ripe (defn #5) work that hasn't publicly moved in over a year regarding integrating the anti-harassment close.

WMF Banned User

— Questions from Horizon of Happy You have a below average length of service as an Administrator and not much participation in the so called drama board aspects of dispute resolution. Is there anything else in your experience that might convince people you have the requisite empathy for how hard it can often be to live up to the high ideals of ADMINCOND when confronted with the sort of disputes that characterises the ArbCom end of things? Horizon of Happy (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Blocked as a WMF-banned user. If a good-faith user should wish to ask a similar question, please feel free. --Izno (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Joe Roe

2. You are a regular on the unofficial Wikipedia Discord server. As you know, due to a recent extension of the outing policy, discussions there can no longer be scrutinised on-wiki. With that in mind, would you care to volunteer any comment on your Discord activity to voters? For example, has your conduct there met the same conduct policies and expectations of administrators that we have on-wiki?

   "volunteer"? No.

   "conduct policies and expectations of administrators": Discord is not subject to all the same rules as Wikipedia (more strict in some and more lax in others), never mind that different groups will have different unobserved or undocumented rules (norms). You may review the "official" rules at WP:Discord#Guidelines.

4. Along the same lines, if you were elected, to what extent do you think it would be appropriate to discuss arbitration matters on Discord? Conversely, would you recuse from a case if another Discord regular was a party?

   Access to privileged data requires at least the same level of privilege as the data is protected under. Discord as a service doesn't provide that for ArbCom data, so, no, not appropriate, even if I were to be discussing with another sufficiently-privileged user.

   As for the latter question, I would in a case which pertains directly to that platform. I think I also would where the person is a significant contributor on that platform.

Questions from A7V2

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

   If there is sufficient disruption to the encyclopedia, then the minimum viable alternative to a mutual IBAN is probably topic bans for both from the areas they overlap in. Same effect as a "too restrictive IBAN" from this perspective and consequently we lose an editor (we also lose contributions in the two areas on individual pages where the two editors do not overlap, so there is a negative to this option). I would not go so far as to say it is a net positive, but an IBAN with the loss of an editor is probably the best the community can get out of such a case.

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

   No to the first. Of course we'd like to keep everyone around contributing as net-positives, but stuff that ends up at ArbCom ends up at ArbCom because there is sustained unresolved disruption that needs to be dealt with that is impacting how the community is producing the encyclopedia or the encyclopedia itself.

   As to the second, here's what I had to say a couple days ago about blocks and which I think is probably reasonable for ArbCom sanctions: "I usually weigh the breadth of the issue (1 to N pages), whether it was disruption in mainspace or elsewhere, which of the policies earned the user the block, how severe the policy violation was, and whether I think the user even will [sic] take the opportunity to reform." If that falls under "type of editor and contribution" (especially the last I suppose?), then sure, it matters. If it doesn't, then probably not.

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

Questions from Kolya Butternut

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

   No. That said, stale doesn't mean "we will never review the contributions of this account", stale means "it's not worth our limited time to pursue this account at this time because the account is not actively disrupting Wikipedia". If/when the account should directly start editing again or another account start editing that looks like the first, and the editing is disruptive, having the link can be a positive start to a more in-depth investigation.

Question from Epiphyllumlover

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

   If such a program were instituted, I think ArbCom should have no role in it. And as such, were it instituted, the WMF can do as they please within whatever restrictions they wish to place upon themselves or which might be placed upon them by other social, lawful, or political entities. (I think ultimately that would probably be a waste of donor cash.)

Question from Hijiri88

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

   "What is your stance on two-way IBANs that are imposed because of one-way harassment?" A two-way IBAN in such a situation is contra-indicated for one-way harassment, so far as I know.

   "would you be open to repealing it?" Awfully specific parenthetical statements. Sure, I'd be open to repealing it.

Question from Nosebagbear

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

   1. WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE wants the evidence to be public at least to all other administrators, which leaves an out for blocking administrators to email a reviewing administrator with public but WP:BEANSy details (and functionaries for private details). OTOH WP:EXPLAINBLOCK suggests adding non-obvious information as one might have in a behavioral sock block judgement call. Administrators do have a requirement to supply a clear and specific reason for the block, but one would need to argue that "Sock of Example" is not a clear and specific reason. I don't see another place this kind of requirement would live (WP:SOCK seems to have nothing about this apparent practice, actually), so, my answer is "it's not forbidden by policy".
   2. "Is it morally justifiable [not to share this information with the blocked user]?" Under which moral system? I'm no philosopher, but I have a couple of undergraduate philosophy courses under my belt (including one on philosophy of law) and could point to (more) systems that say it is morally justifiable and probably a few that say it's not. Does my personal system of ethics think it is justifiable? I think we have sufficient policy protections and mechanisms for someone who needs to have their appeal heard for it to be heard. Having an appeal system, and at least two separate other avenues after that specific system is exhausted, which itself allows multiple attempts at an appeal.... That's probably the closest I'll get to endorsing the practice.
   3. That said, I think our appeals system is crud whether you're accused of socking and the evidence is undisclosed or not, much like many of our other workflows. So general improvement is needed regardless.
   4. False confessions are of course a possibility, but this is again a general issue with our block and appeals system. We can maybe do some things about it, like falling back on the community more in questionable cases, and training or asking our administrators (reviewing? blocking?) to treat blocks differently (there are some ways documented in "False confession#Better police training" that might meaningfully be applied here).

4. Where would you say you stand on the "hanging judge/gentler hand" spectrum of arbs? Would this differ in a normal case vs that of desysopping? (to clarify, that is that recent arbcoms have adopted a broader acceptance of admin-conduct cases, being the only forum, vs the most egregious/tricky "normal" conduct cases)

   I suspect I will more likely tend to the severe side of the balance rather than the gentle. It's certain to be a range given the variety of cases ArbCom hears.

   I am not sure there should be a lower bar for acceptance of ADMINCOND cases relative to other kinds of cases, even though it is only AC's job to call admins to account currently. I think the bar for action against administrators in (all) cases is lower given the explicit policy on the point.

Question from Atsme

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

   The work isn't done, so... something to look forward to in 2022? :)

Ahhh...the art of diplomacy and brevity...and a whopping good answer nonetheless! Thank you Izno, and thank you for volunteering.

Question from Robert McClenon

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

   1. I don't see any reason to vary from normal procedure to accept a case which has a supposed "combination" content-conduct dispute. These cases are just as routine as any others at ArbCom. ArbCom will try to sort out the conduct issues which should theoretically allow the content issues to move forward.
   2. Erm, you seem to be missing several rather large pieces of content resolution here (since you have included WP:3O, which is not, as you imply, a conduct resolution mechanism specifically), including WP:RFC, WP:XFD, WP:RM... If those are shown to be ineffective to sort specific content issues out, then the issue should indeed be resolved via conduct resolution methods because that's usually where the issue lies (or the content-dispute is not sufficiently defined--in which case do another RFC/involve external editors cycle). Using the existing content resolution mechanisms can also validate whether there are in fact conduct issues with external editors before reaching for conduct dispute resolution mechanisms. So, in general, I don't see that anything needs to change on that front (though I must admit that 3O particularly could use a more "+1" attitude rather than the current "2+1" attitude).

4. Follow-up: I did not think that I was implying that Third Opinion had to do with conduct. Third Opinion is for simple content disputes. With any content-conduct dispute, the content dispute is worsened by the conduct, and resolving the content issue may make it unnecessary to resolve the conduct. My concern was and is how to try to resolve complex or protracted content disputes, and that, because we do not have a way to resolve protracted content disputes, we do not have a way to defocus the conduct. Does that clarify my question, or did you already answer it? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

   I saw including it among other "conduct-only" fora as an implication, but if you did not mean the implication, my bad. Yes, I think I did already answer your question.