Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Thryduulf

Thryduulf

I wasn't intending to stand this year, but with (at the time of writing) fewer candidates I would be happy to vote for than there are seats available, I feel the need to step up to the plate to ensure that 2022 has a committee with enough members to be functional. I'm not as familiar with recent cases as I could be, which will increase the time it takes me to answer questions about them, but does mean I will be approaching without preconceived notions.

I have been a Wikipedian for very nearly 17 years, an admin for about 16½ and an Oversighter and Functionary since my previous term on Arbcom in 2015.

Most of my work on Wikipedia is in a supporting role to readers and article writers – mostly gnoming and working with redirects. My philosophy is that readers must always come first, content editors and maintainers (article writers, gnomes, etc) second and those that support the first two groups (template editors, bot operators, dispute resolution specialists, etc.) third. The goal of dispute resolution should always be that the needs of the encyclopaedia comes first, even if that is not the ideal outcome for any individual. The project is bigger than any one person and nobody is unreplaceable, me included. This means that even a hundred featured articles does not give a free pass for bad behaviour, especially if it impacts readers or new editors.

If elected to the committee I will do my best to make sure that things to do not get forgotten and that cases and other ongoing work is progressed with as little delay as possible – things dragging on for months benefits nobody. I aim to be vocal on talk and workshop pages, and commit to ensuring every ongoing request (on which I'm active and not recused) gets at least one arbitrator comment every week while it is open.

I feel everybody involved in dispute resolution should be treated fairly and with respect, but this comes with the greater responsibility to always treat others with fairness and respect. While I will endeavour to always uphold this standard myself I am human and not perfect, so please let me know (politely and with context) if you think I could do better.

Declaration: I have signed the confidentiality agreement. I have several other accounts, all listed at User:Thryduulf#Other accounts, but only user:Awkward42 is used for editing.

• Thryduulf (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?

   Generally we should be using using something like on the balance of probabilities, but where there are (potentially) serious consequences (whether that is due to a sanction or some other reason isn't really relevant) we should look to be as certain as we can be.

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?

   We should always do what we can to verify that off-wiki evidence is what it claims to be, but what that precise mechanism is will depend on what the evidence is and how significant it is (it's not worth expending much effort on something of almost no consequence and/or relevance). I don't know what the current ArbCom processes are in this regard so I can't answer that part of your question, but when I was on the committee in 2015 we (Roger Davies did most of the legwork iirc) went to great lengths to verify off-wiki evidence related to the Lightbreather case and should we get another case of that significance this year I'd hope we expend similar effort. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Gerda Arendt

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

   As I have worked closely with RexxS on multiple occasions and consider him a friend in real life, I would have recused from that case (unless RexxS asked me not to, I remember him saying something to that effect at an Oxford meetup but whether it was in this context I don't recall). However at the time I encouraged the committee to accept the case to examine the evidence (before SV made her comment) of whether there was a long-term conduct issue, predicting it would show either no issue or one requiring RexxS be formally reminded that civility is important but nothing stronger than that. Speaking generally, harassment is a big problem and when sincere accusations are made (i.e. excluding those that are clearly frivolous or trolling) it is important for both parties that the allegations are properly investigated with an open mind. If the accused party is innocent then the evidence will show this, but if they choose not to present any evidence then that cannot happen. If only guilty people stay for the trial, then all trials will end with a guilty verdict regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
   See also Sdrqaz's question 4 for clarification regarding RexxS and recusal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

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?

   Sanctions are not inevitable, but they are likely. This is because almost all situations where sanctions are not required don't make it anywhere near arbcom, and of those that do most are declined at the request stage or dealt with by motion. This means that for a case to be accepted either it's clear someone is doing something wrong (although who and/or what are not always obvious) or things are not clear and need investigation, with the former being more common. Add on to that cases where one party declines to participate, resigns the tools or even leaves the project before completion and it's very clear that the outcomes statistics are based on a biased sample.
   Abuse of admin tools and/or status is one of the most serious accusations that can be made on Wikipedia, and so where the accusations are at all credible I feel it is important that they are properly examined without prejudice to any outcome as all admins must be, and be seen to be, accountable for their actions. That doesn't mean they should be sanctioned for things they did not do, or be sanctioned excessively for things they did do, but without examining evidence it is not possible to say whether anyone actually did do something wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

   Of the cases that were opened in 2021, I think accepting was the right decision in each case. Whether RexxS should have been suspended when it became clear he'd de facto retired is arguable, and while I have sympathy for Rexx (particularly as he's someone I consider a friend irl) I also have sympathy for the others involved and the appearance that resigning is a way to evade scrutiny so it will always be a difficult call. Frankly I wish he hadn't resigned, both because I miss him and his good work on Wikipedia and in the wider movement (he is one of, if not the, best trainers I've worked with) but also I want someone who is (or claims to be) wrongly or overly accused to actually stand up and demonstrate this (see my other answers on this page for more on this topic).
   Of the declined cases, I only have anything more than minor quibbles regarding Hijiri88 and BrownHairedGirl however I am very much not neutral regarding BHG and would have immediately recused on seeing the request so I don't want to comment too much about them here, but I think that case, with the right scope, could have been a good thing for the project. As for Hijiri88, their arbitration case dates from when I was on the committee and I'm sorry we didn't solve all the issues back then. Unless something changes I do think we'll see them at RFArb again (although I obviously hope I'm wrong) but I'm in two minds about whether I would have voted to accept that case when it was presented, especially with the hindsight that the filing party (The owner of all) and another probably involved editor (MjolnirPants} are both currently blocked.
   In other matters, the unblock of SethRubens was really not the Committee's finest hour and this is something that everyone should work to avoid a repeat of.
   PS: It's been pointed out that MjolnirPants's block was self-requested, which I hadn't realised. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

6. (Follow-up to Q2) Given you would have recused in the BrownHairedGirl case request and your stated friendship with RexxS, would you have recused in his case if you were on the Committee at the time?

   Yes, unless he asked me not to (see my answer to Gerda). Thryduulf (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

8. (Follow-up to Q3) I'm going to press further here. I think that approach would make sense if your relationship was antagonistic (as it would not be in his interest to ask you to participate). However, given your friendly relationship, to a cynic it would be in his interest to ask you to participate. Could you give the reasoning behind that qualifier?

   I see where you are coming from on that, and that view makes sense for someone who isn't as familiar with Rexx as Gerda and I are (sorry everyone and thank you for asking about it), however Rexx would not ask if he felt I would be anything other than fair. If I feel that I would be anything other than fair and neutral regarding a person or topic then I will recuse, regardless of what other parties think. For example I have no idea what BrownHairedGirl or KTC would think of my ability to be neutral in a dispute on which they were a part (for very different reasons), but as I don't think I would be neutral their answer to the question is irrelevant as I will be recusing regardless. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions from George Ho

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

   Please be much more specific about what you mean by "feedback". The concept of the UCoC is one of the best things the WMF has come up with, and while I haven't been following it in detail it seems that in practice the detail is pretty good considering the need to work with many different cultures (both real world cultures and project cultures). Enforcement details are still being worked out and so it's too early to give feedback on that aspect.

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?

   The most recent case that affected me personally was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals as someone who had been bullied out of the discussions. I was both pleased and disappointed by the way it turned out; the remedies regarding BrownHairedGirl were about right in my opinion, and I was pleased with the way their conduct during the case was noted in the final decision, but she was not the only one who was disruptive (just the most voluminously disruptive) and the actions of others were overlooked to an extent. A comment I made on the proposed decision talk page in reply to a comment about proposed remedy 7/7.1 (recommending community discussion of portals) seems relevant here, If other remedies pass, BHG will not be permitted to take part in such discussions (because of the finding she has been disruptive in such discussions). In other situations removing the sole disruptive user has resolved impasses, so it's not impossible it will work here. However, I don't have much faith on this occasion though, as while BHG was the single most voluminous disruptive user she was not the only one who was disruptive (as noted in the workshop, this was a failure of those submitting evidence to bring to light, including me).. It's worth noting here that if I am elected I will be recusing regarding BrownHairedGirl and/or portals should either come up during my term.

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?

   Do you mean comments from people at AN/I or Arbcom? The committee should only be examining the evidence presented in the case, so if you think that comments at ANI from editors uninvolved in the original dispute have had a significant impact on matters, then you need to be noting this at the request stage and then presenting evidence about it (rebutting their claims if that's relevant) because those users were not actually uninvolved. If there is a problem with one or more editors at AN/I across multiple disputes brought to that board then you should be following the dispute resolution process regarding them, including bringing an ArbCom case if matters are not resolved before then. If you are talking about comments made in the evidence or workshop phases of an arbcom case that you believe are incorrect then you should be presenting/using evidence to rebut those claims.

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?

   Arbcom is not in the business of determining guilt or innocence, and there should be no presumption of either. Arbcom is in the business of examining the evidence presented and, if necessary, instituting remedies that are intended to resolve disputes that get in the way of writing the encyclopaedia. If someone chooses not to present evidence then their side of the story cannot be examined, which will frequently lead to an outcome based more on the other party's perspectives than a neutral one. If someone is accused of abusing their admin tools or status and is presented with evidence that at least superficially supports that, but the accused party chooses not to present evidence rebutting those accusations then there is very little the Committee can do other than accept the evidence they've seen as evidence of disrupting the project and act to stop that disruption continuing and/or reoccurring. Depending on the specific circumstances that could include a desysopping. See also my reply to Gerda.

Thank you for your answers, Thryduulf. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Cwmhiraeth

2. As a former member of ArbCom, did you ever take part in a case in which you probably should have recused yourself?

   Off the top of my head I would have said a straight "no", one of my fellow 2015 arbitrators (I can't remember who or why) even commented somewhere that I was too quick to recuse. However, I've looked through all the 2015 cases again and I see one thing worthy of comment: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. There I wrote (in part) when voting to accept, I have been participating in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, and have cautioned one other participant (not listed as a party here) about using personal attacks in that discussion. I do not think this makes me involved enough to require recusal, but I will reconsider this if asked. After a bit of searching (nobody used permalinks), I think the relevant discussion is at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 196#The Atlantic - How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women and having re-read my contributions there I think I would make the same decision again today - I took no admin actions (just issued a warning to an editor who was not a party to the case and afaict made no contributions to it at all) and commented almost entirely about meta-issues. As far as I can tell and remember at this distance, nobody did ask me at the time to reconsider. Later, also before the case was opened, I also commented in response to something that Black Kite wrote, What we choose to examine or not examine following a case request is wholly within the purview of the Arbitration Committee. Having a different opinion to you about that is not a reason for me (or any other arbitrator) to recuse. six years later I can't work out which statement of Black Kite's that was referencing, but without context at least it is also something I stand by. So the more considered answer is also "no".
   If there are any other specific instances you have in mind then please let me know.

Questions from ProcrastinatingReader

2. In your statement you mention My philosophy is that readers must always come first, content editors and maintainers (article writers, gnomes, etc) second and those that support the first two groups (template editors, bot operators, dispute resolution specialists, etc.) third. Could you elaborate on what you mean here? Further, how will this philosophy influence your decisions as an arbitrator?

   The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to educate people who read it, those who write and polish the encyclopaedia are supporting that goal. Similarly those who write and operate bots are supporting those who are supporting that goal - they do good and useful work, but it is secondary. So the basic premise is that we should not (and by and large do not), disrupt the experience of readers for the convenience of editors, and we should not (although alas not always do not) disrupt the experience of editors for the benefit of bots. We maintain redirects that are useful to readers even if they add a little inconvenience to editors, we maintain multiple redirects to the same template for the convenience of editors even if they make programming a bot more complicated. In at least most disputes that reach arbcom this will have no impact on my decision making at all (e.g. it is completely irrelevant to a dispute like Iranian Politics as no party was more or less focused on readers' or editors' experiences than any other ). In a dispute involving use of automation or things like infoboxes I will be more inclined to give the benefit of doubt to those whose actions are prioritising readers over content editors or content editors over bot operators, and less tolerant of things like rule-breaking and gung-ho-edness (there must be an actual word for that, but I can't think what it is). Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from wbm1058

2. Should ArbCom-appointed checkusers be allowed to unilaterally tag a user as a likely sockpuppet of another user, point to the (perhaps years-old) sockpuppet investigation of the alleged sockpuppeteer, and then block the accused new user based on only behavioral evidence (i.e. with non-confirming technical evidence), without first conducting a community examination of the alleged behavioral connection and gaining a community consensus to block? Indeed, per this example, "Undid revision 1055911694 by xxxxx leave this for User:yyyy" the impression given by that edit summary is that the decision is only to be made by the accusing checkuser admin – who has yet to open a formal discussion on the matter. Are you OK with that?

   There are a lot of parts to that question and I'm not at all sure I understand what you are asking, so I'll try and break it down:
   Should a checkuser be allowed to unilaterally tag a user a likely sockpuppet of another users? Yes. That's what checkusers do.
   Should they block based only on behavioural evidence while while pointing to an old SPI? Yes, if they've assessed the behavioural evidence. Many SPIs contain behavioural information, checkusers are often familiar with the tells of sockpuppetteers, there can be additional non-public information visible only to checkusers.
   What about "non-conforming" technical evidence? If the technical evidence is inconclusive then obviously a determination will need to be made based on behavioural evidence. If the technical evidence evidence contradicts the behavioural evidence, then a determination will need to be made based on the interpretation of both and there are plenty of possibilities about what could be happening (e.g. innocent user, meat puppet, sockmaster on holiday, sockmaster using a VPN, someone impersonating the sockmaster, etc).
   Do checkusers need to get a community consensus to block? No, as the community cannot see all the evidence.
   Are checkusers allowed to conduct behavioural checks without reference to the community? Yes - it may be obvious, it may have been discussed privately among checkusers and/or there might be other non-puplic evidence. For privacy (including the WMF privacy policy) and WP:BEANS reasons not every detail of every sockpuppet investigation should be or even can be public.
   Am I OK with the specific example? On the face of it, someone reverting a checkuser because they are more sure than the checkuser that someone is a sock is unusual, but the discussion on the CU's talk page shows that things are being reconsidered and that reconsideration is still in progress. It seems like what has happened is that a sockpuppet has been attributed to the wrong master, CU is an art not a science so some mistakes are made. Given all that and that it's been ongoing less than 24 hours and, especially as both possible masters are blocked anyway, it's not an urgent matter, so it all looks like things are working as they should (as least currently).
   The bottom line is that when an action has been taken by a user based on non-public information that action should not be reversed or meaningfully adjusted by someone without access to that information. If someone has concerns about such an action they should discuss it with the person who made it, their peers, the arbitration committee or the Ombuds commission as appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Fram

2. Has, in your experience, personalizing debates (i.e. not discussing the merits of a proposal, but addressing things like the experience or group membership of an editor instead[1][2]), ever lead to the other editor changing their opinion or seeing things from your perspective? Or does this fall afoul of Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor?

   In my experience, when an experienced contributor's comments/actions regarding a content dispute are more akin to what someone completely unfamiliar with community/venue norms would do/suggest (as in your example) it is helpful to point that out. Sometimes it makes the experienced user take a step back and evaluate why their actions/comments are being received the way they are. As you demonstrate though sometimes it doesn't work and experienced editor makes it all about themselves, occasionally exporting the disagreement to other venues without context. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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?

   Yes. We are getting the content produced by the editor who didn't leave, and we are getting content from other editors who were put off/distracted from contributing due to the disrupted discussions. Obviously it would be preferable if both editors continued contributing, but we don't live in an ideal world unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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?

   If someone is productively contributing to the encyclopaedia then in general we should try and retain them, however if their actions are hindering other editors then sometimes we unfortunately have to part ways with someone for the good of the project overall. Good content does not excuse bad behaviour. In all cases we should strive for the minimum necessary sanctions, e.g. tbans and ibans are generally preferable to site bans, but if a dispute has reached arbcom then it will often mean that these have been tried without success.
   Regarding the second part of your question, see my answer to ProcrastinatingReader. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for your answers! A7V2 (talk) 00:51, 22 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?

   If all checkuser information is stale then it is stale and nothing anybody says or does can change that. In terms of analysing behavioural evidence it can sometimes be useful but only when it's being done to actually protect the encyclopaedia from disruption. It must always be done in such a way that it never becomes harassment or a witch-hunt or something like that, and while I'm not that experienced at SPI some of what is in that report looks a lot like grasping at straws. Everybody needs to remember that there comes a time when sticks need to be dropped, and need to seen to be dropped. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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?

   This is the first time I've heard about this at all, so I haven't had much chance to think about it but there are several aspects here.
   If you have information that editors are disrupting the encyclopaedia (e.g. by corrupting discussions) then send that information to arbcom, publicly or privately as appropriate to the nature of the evidence.
   If you have evidence that editors are breaking the terms of use, then you should send that information to the WMF for them to take action as appropriate.
   The financial bounty idea sounds interesting, but it is not something that arbcom could or should be involved with, it's far outside the committee's role, but it is something that is worth talking to the WMF about (although it would seem odd to restrict it to non-English speaking countries).
   Training is also outside the scope of arbcom, but as a trainer for Wikimedia UK (pre-pandemic anyway) it is something I believe in. I'm reluctant to tie it in at all to wrongdoing though as that runs the risk of incentivising behaviour we do not want to encourage, and training is something that should be easily available to anyone who wants it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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.)

   I know that you are talking at least partially regarding your own experience, but my answer is not - I am referring only to the general case. One-way ibans can work sometimes, but equally they can sometimes be the cause of more problems - it depends on the circumstances. Each option is the correct tool some of the time, but in my experience two-way ibans are useful more commonly than one-way ones. It's also worth remembering that few cases which make it as far as arbcom are black and white - for example just because user X is being harassed by user Y does not imply anything about whether user Y is or is not POV pushing or even harassing user Z. So just because a user was the victim of harassment doesn't necessarily mean that their tban is unjustified.
   The only point of a sanction should be to prevent disruption, so arbcom must always be prepared to review it. Arbitrators are human and humans are not perfect so the committee cannot get everything right first time. However it is very unlikely that anything will be changed without evidence that things aren't working and that the sanction being appealed is the reason for that. Abusing the appeals process will result in access to it being restricted of course. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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?

   I don't know policy or current practice in this area off the top of my head (SPI has never been my thing), but there will always be a trade-off between giving too much information and not giving enough, but if there is a chance that the editor is here in good faith they should always be given enough information to mount an appeal. For me what matters more than anything is whether the user concerned is actually disrupting the encyclopaedia, if they are then it doesn't ultimately matter (in almost all cases) whether they are a sock or not - a block is necessary to stop disruption. If they aren't disrupting the encyclopaedia, and especially if they are improving it, then why do we care if they are a sock? If someone is acting disruptively and the technical and/or behavioural evidence is clear they're a sock, then yes link them and deal with them appropriately, but if they aren't being disruptive or the evidence is not clear then we should treat them as if they are not a sock and deal with their behaviour on those grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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?

   If there was a single, simple answer to how to solve these sorts of issues then it would have been implemented a decade ago at least and we wouldn't need an arbitration committee. In answer to your specific questions:
   1. In exactly the same way that it decides whether to accept a dispute that has no content element - if the community has tried and failed to resolve a dispute then it's up to ArbCom to take on the task.
   2. Look at the first few years of arbcom and you will see it was a very different environment with dozens of cases that were incredibly minor by the standards of what the Committee takes on these days. This shows that the community is much better at handling these sorts of disputes than it was, however it does mean that those disputes that are intractable end up at ArbCom much later than they did and so are much bigger balls of disruption and complexity. Changes to parts of the dispute resolution process other than arbitration are outside the scope of the Arbitration Committee, so my ideas are no more valuable or important than yours, but that said, making the dispute resolution even more complicated than it already is (e.g. by adding more venues) is not the way to go (imo). What would be better would be to improve existing processes so disputes that have the potential to become protracted can be identified much earlier so that they waste less community time, cause less disruption, and are easier for outsiders to the dispute to unpick. Adding a bit of structure (not as much as at arbcom though), having word limits and some sort of clerking to keep things on topic, and shut down unproductive discussions earlier might make ANI a more productive venue. Again though, this is outside of ArbCom's scope so it's not anything that the committee could implement. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)