User:AmandaNP/ACE 2020

My guide focuses on the aspects I find relevant from my day to day work. I will be providing feedback on answers to my questions and generic statements, facts, or highlights from other answers. I will not be providing a support or oppose, that will be your decision as I am not looking at the candidates as a whole.

Issues I find relevant for this election:

The ability of ArbCom to overturn CheckUser blocks
Enforcement of CU, OS, ANPIP and privacy policies against current functionaries
The appointment of new functionaries
The intersectionality of systemic oppression and Wikipedia, and an arbitrator's role in that

Questions edit

Questions from AmandaNP edit

Each and every year issues of systemic oppression become louder and louder in society. In 3 major countries that our contributors come from have been dealing with increasing public pressure to address such issues. (US: [1], UK: [2], Canada: [3] [4]) Given this and the increased political attention this is getting, it's bound to be a dispute that spills into many different sectors of Wikipedia (race, class, gender, sexuality, disability, etc.). I would argue that cases where these issues could pop-up already have been litigated through previous committees (AMPOL 2, MoS through ATC, and Gender through GamerGate) and will continue to do so. My question is, as an Arbitrator, do you think you have a role in preventing systemic oppression from happening on Wikipedia, and what would that role look like?
The role of CheckUser and Oversight are given to every arbitrator on request. CheckUser regularly requires experience to interpret results. Given you have a vote in how proceedings involving the overturning of checkuser blocks, the enforcement of the CU/OS policies including the privacy policy, and the appointment of new functionaries, how does your experience show that you can place independent thought into such decisions? I'm not asking about how you defer to others as that is not showing independent discretion and thought. (Cases relevant: {{checkuserblock-account}} blocks where the behavior doesn't match but technical evidence does, accusations of violations of the privacy policies by two former functionaries, and the lack of appropriate staffing of venues - OTRS oversight, checkuser and paid editing queues, ACC CheckUser queue, and IRC Checkuser and oversight requests)

Please note I did provide followup on my user talkpage stating the following:

I've given it some thought, and I'll reformat the question which may aid in understanding. That said you may also want to take hints from my guide about how others answered. That said, I'm looking for your unique response also, so don't rely on it.

So the question: How does your wiki experience show that you can give independent thought (not by relying on others) into decisions that you will have to make as an Arbitrator? In answering the question, use what I write to help shape you answer, don't answer the questions I list directly. Remember it all relates to the question of showing independent thought.
{{checkuserblock-account}}s appealed to ArbCom where the technical evidence is not black and white. Checkuserblocks by their nature require that a sufficient amount of technical information exists that proves the connection and has a higher standard than a regular WP:DUCK and/or WP:SOCK block. Will you be able to take into consideration the mitigating factors (I'm being vague on the factors as to not give away an answer or tell someone how to sock) that make up a checkuserblock that go beyond technical evidence?

Enforcement of CU, OS, ANPIP and the Privacy policy against actions that CheckUsers take is very much a grey area. The line always has to be drawn somewhere though. Are you going to exercise independent thought on where that line in the sand should be or will you follow the flow of whatever people on ArbCom at the time think the line is? Do you AGF or ABF in these cases and on which side?

Staffing of the non-regular venues of CheckUser has always been poor, whether this is publicly acknowledged or not. It often relies on a few select functionaries to do it. Over the years of me being both on and off the committee, I always take concern with the committee's lack of consideration for the work preformed by those on the non-regular venues when choosing functionaries. With burnout being a higher risk to functionaries who staff these queues, how does your experience show that you will provide independent thought to decisions about functionaries? (Disclaimer: at times I didn't exercise independent thought, but did do so when I thought there was something more at stake)

I hope this helps clarify my question and anyone else is free to use this to reguide their answer and reping me. Remember you don't have to follow this template, this is just something to guide your answer.
— User:AmandaNP 08:45, 19 November 2020

Table edit

The table is now complete. As we are already into voting, and I have already clarified Q2, I doubt I'll be making any clarifications unless there is a glaring issue with what I have said. This is both out of fairness to people who have voted and the other candidates. The generic comments may garner something if I find it early enough in the election, but I won't post anything after the half way mark. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


Candidates	Question 1	Question 2	Generic comments
Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) Questions	Barkeep does acknowledge what I view as the difference between a boss and a leader. Leaders are there to support their "community" and help them work through decisions. Bosses just hand things down. At minimum, that is understood here and would be applied. I'm happy that they can show examples of existing times where they are addressing privilege issues proactively and reactively. I was a tad disappointed though that there was not further clarification on how that affects the role of being an Arbitrator.	This answer does not address any of the specifics of what I did ask, but at the same time, that's not necessary. Barkeep has indicated through the linked RfC that they won't just jump on the bandwagon because it's a "decent idea" or the appeal to common belief fallacy (bandwagon) and they will be one of the first to do so. This satisfies my question for the independent thinking even if they don't know the answer.	An endorsement from 3 functionaries, particularly Risker, PMC & L235 is about as good as you can get for an endorsement from that team.
BDD (talk · contribs) Questions	BDD's answer hit my concern on the head. When on ArbCom, you always have to consider implications beyond the case that are happening and address systemic bias before or as soon as it's systemic oppression. ArbCom, even at times while I was on could go too narrow in it's case PD and end up not really addressing the issue. My fear of this is bigger in the areas where oppression are concerned. They also highlight that avoiding systemic bias/oppression is good for the project. While I don't expect and agreement on every view, this shows at least the greater good of the project will be considered by the candidate.	BDD's answer here is reflective of what you would expect from a new to functionary candidate. That alone wouldn't be enough for me. Looking deeper though, there are some key things I see. Having the awareness that CU needs a human to interpret and to be able draw that out on your own (even with my clarification) shows an understanding that CU is just a tool at the end of the day. So many editors think a version of pixie dust but I don't get that sense from BDD. The further willingness to build up experience in the area is where we gain a few good post-arb term functionaries is always an asset, especially when it reflects in their work. So the lack of experience isn't a disqualifier. Also being willing to address the burnout especially on the smaller venues is what is needed to bring in the proper blood on such venues.	I am definitely concerned by the apparent lack of blocks preformed by the candidate. I would expect Arbitrators to show that they have the background of enforcement of policies so that they can do the task assigned to them. On the surface there is no such statement or things in the block log that can immediately satisfy my concern. I will try and look back if I have time, but I am open to others pointing out what I'm missing.
Bradv (talk · contribs) Questions	The highlight of Brad's response is the making sure that new editors from minority communities are onboarded correctly and supported when facing harassment. This is definitely the proper idea to external engagement that should be a better focus of the WMF, but Brad has clearly laid out the case of how we can support that onwiki. Obviously I don't know what the committee has done in the past year privately to deal with harassment issues off-wiki, but I do remember it being a fair chunk of what I dealt with while I was on. I remember writing "here is what's going on, these are your not-so-great option" emails way more than I wanted to, just trying to humanize the absolute shit I saw people facing. Overall these background duties are the most relevant to stopping systemic oppression outside of cases. Brad's onwiki record will speak for itself as I don't intend to rehash cases except when the cases themselves are extremely problematic.	As Brad is an existing CheckUser, I like to see that the paid editing queue is mentioned. I feel responsible when there is a CU related backlog. The paid editing queue has been a disaster and continues to be one that I don't like to even try and touch though I have dabbled in it a few times. It does need to be rethought and that's the thinking needed. I really enjoyed the balance of thought that there are two humans on each side of an appeal between ArbCom. When people show that they have the ability to understand what is done wrong and then fix it, they should be let back in (as I try with my own recent unblocks). But also the show of respect for the time of those issuing the blocks is important too and that it doesn't have to be litigated like a court case. The answer shows clarity and a run of independent thought.
CaptainEek (talk · contribs) Questions	CaptianEek understands directly the systemic oppression that can occur with people on Wikipedia. They are absolutely right that a lot of people I talk to about dealing with harassment issues (even as a former arb) don't think that ArbCom will provide any help. A lot of times, especially with off-wiki, it has collectively failed to take proper action. Therefore, a commitment to be more open during cases and decisions to considering how harassment is oppressive to minority groups is a real benefit.	Blocks: I am comforted by the fact that they understand the fact that socks can play mind games. I might be dating my wikicareer here, but it was either Alison or J.delanoy that mentioned dreaming about socks and the mind games that are played, especially by technically competent socks. They also loopback to the overzealous blocking of socks which has happened, and even more so in blocking sockmasters for the first time. This shows that they are aware of the complexities to review a block and will be able to consider options independently even if they don't have the knowledge. Audit: My stance on paid editors is quite...contrary to the established consensus, but nonetheless I can understand that the deep level investigations that happen there (I've done a few myself) do show a degree of understanding of the complexities of any conduct review case. I do feel they may not be completely aware of the potential damage that not making the proper decision. It's a lot higher than a paid editing investigation. So I'm not convinced by the answer, but I'm not overly concerned. Appointment: My first initial reaction is CaptainEek has no idea what they are in for on ArbCom task wise. You never have the time to do any outside functions and when you do, you are drained and are a lot slower at them. This is why Arbs that haven't found there specialty beforehand often disappear after ArbCom. But I digress from my question. I am glad they are willing to appoint more people for underserved areas. I do get the also being cautious at the same time. Overall, I'm satisfied with the response, and think there will be enough independent judgement used.
Guerillero (talk · contribs) Questions	Yes, content issues are based on reliable sources where there are issues outside of Wikipedia's control. But that is not question. They say that ArbComs options may be limited and that ArbCom doesn't like to do extra work, which is likely true, but that's what I'm looking to see countered. It's going in with a glass half full vs. a glass half empty view. If you go in thinking that it's half empty, you aren't going to get anywhere to begin with. I'm looking for the ability to show progress and change, not stick to the status quo.	I am encouraged to see that someone else thinks the disbanding of BASC wasn't the best idea (even though I voted for it's disbandment at the time). What it properly needed was a restructuring. What that exactly would look like I'll leave up to those who deal with it, but nonetheless, the starting idea is there. Having served on both ArbCom and the OC, I'm not a fan of two different bodies reviewing the same case. Either there was a violation of policy or their wasn't (though I understand that is not black and white). English Wikipedia politics shouldn't play into it. So I appreciate the view that the WMF, OC and ArbCom may need to rethink their relationship. While I'm not sure I fully understand the answer to the venues portion, I am open to the position that we may be looking at staffing issues too selectively and may need to look into the bigger picture.
Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) Questions	Saying harassment will not be tolerated and Arbcom needs to be enforcing that...is lacking. 2020 has dealt with a brand new set of issues that never existed before this year. Same with the past several years, just on different topics. Enforcement is a parallel to systemic oppression in western societies. So this answer does not instill confidence in me that the candidate can even start to expand and think about how privilege will play a role in Arbitration cases. Given there is not much in the answer anyway, I don't think I can comment any further.	Speaking solely to the block review portion, as that's what the candidate covered, I am concerned. I do have some of my blocks go before the appeals section (or whatever we call it now) of the Arbitration Committee. The essence of these blocks is an extrapolation of probabilities based on technical evidence. An IP and UA match in the United States is interpreted completely different from the same in the UK or in India or in China. Even then there are multiple complicated factors that I'm not going to spill over BEANS. This answer doesn't instill confidence that there will be independent thought over these blocks, and much less around the rest of my question.
L235 (talk · contribs) Questions	While Kevin does call it out right, it is lacking somewhat in examples of how it would happen. When I wrote this question, I was looking for some additional idea, work or thought that could go into the current committee and provide alternative options for users experiencing harassment. I've already mentioned writing countless emails saying we can't do much, but at least these are your options and we are with you.	Kevin's tenue and record speaks volumes for itself. They have the experience, period. In each of the three separate answers, what I was trying to get out of the question - what was the core of each issue - was highlighted properly. I encourage a read of the second paragraph specifically for the thinking I am looking for.
Maxim (talk · contribs) Questions	The community, or more in general, society as being the one responsible to initiate change is a form of oppression in itself. Our leaders need to guide the proper way to be handling these issue and set the example, not sit in the back and wait for the world to change first. There are ways within policy already that can be used to deal with systemic oppression, and does not need a completely new toolset from the community.	As their answer clearly states that their record speaks for itself, I don't have much to evaluate here. I would have expected a bit more of a point out to their role within their experience (without breaching confidentiality) to be able to work off of. So I can't provide the community any objective insight here without anything to review.
Primefac (talk · contribs) Questions	See the response for L235. My response there mirrors what I would write here.	Primefac definitely has a record of independent thought shown to (I think) the majority of the community who has touched any type of admin board. That speaks volumes within itself. While they don't specify any of my specific fields, that wasn't required for the question as noted in other places. So I'll leave it at that.
Scottywong (talk · contribs) Questions	I did not ask if Arbitrators should impose their views or how they should impose their views on editors. There is a mutual respect for each other that everyone who is here to contribute to an encyclopedia should have for each other. Anything away from that baseline that is not evidence based problems against policy is a bias and will lead towards systemic oppression. It's why we mostly leave our real lives out of Wikipedia. Further to suggest that the bar should be set at "[overt] racist, homophobic, sexist, or other oppressive or bigoted behavior" is a very low bar and is why we have issues with harassment in the first place.	While a portion of this about whether you have the abilities, Scotty completely misses the rest of the question that includes the policies and appointments of functionaries. This does not instill confidence when questions are being skipped over. Scotty also shows the standard overconfidence that I expect to see from potential CheckUsers with a technical background. CheckUser is not just the mechanics of technology. You have to use the technical results and then do a comparison on the data that you see. That comparison is often more complicated than people are aware and ready for and it takes at minimum 2 years to learn the ins and outs. Even then I am still learning today. Addenum: Scotty has provided further and not modified the original, so I'll keep my original assessment also. They said that they don't have the existing experience with the items I listed directly. That's fine. My problem is there was no attempt to relate it to another portion of there time on Wikipedia where similar type issues may have been dealt with. To be clear, I'm not talking about the split between majority and minority. Because there can be other people with you on that side. What I wanted to know is how you show independent judgement, not that you will. Hope that if elected their research would be appropriate and enough, but the answer didn't reflect anything for me to base a comment on.
SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) Questions	SMc's response is a bit broad but they acknowledge that and tackle the question in a different way. The suggestion that editors at lower levels already have the responsibility, down to individual places (aka not content), have a responsibility to be aware and avoid systemic oppression is my key to this. An Arbitrator that already views this as a community responsibility is going to be more effective at dealing with it than someone who puts the responsibility on policy. Also the cross referencing of other types of oppression that have already been steamed out as examples shows a willingness to cross apply what was done there. That shows that the thinking to this answer is in the right direction.	I think the length of SMc's answers shows alone that they have independent thought, and that goes even further when you start following the links. The answer length is appreciated. They also seem to have extensive policy and privacy experience that would balance the thought in the first two areas I mentioned. As I said above, I'm also open to the understanding that the functionary staffing issue is part of a bigger problem at play. I won't comment on the specific policy view as this is not the place, but I am definitely encouraged by the outside the box thinking.
~~TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) Questions~~	Tony's response is slightly more than what I noted for L235, but not much different than that.	I honestly don't think it is fair for me to write a response to this question as Tony and I have talked in-depth about the issues I raise in this question. Therefore, I encourage you to read his answer directly, with particular attention to the follow up for the current state of affairs.