Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/Callanecc

Background

I joined Wikipedia in 2009, but didn't start actively editing until 2012. I became an administrator in 2013. In 2014, I was appointed to the Audit Subcommittee and gained CheckUser and Oversight tools which I've held since. I was elected, in December 2015, for a two year term on the Arbitration Committee.

Content experience

I continue to believe that having experience with content is a necessary as it demonstrates an ability to work collaboratively with other editors and an understanding of the context of disputes. I've mainly worked on biographies, but I'm trying to branch out into articles about rivers. I've written four GAs and eight DYKs but also contributed to the Articles for Creation process. See User:Callanecc/Articles and User:Callanecc/AFC log for more.

Dispute resolution

As an admin, I place an emphasis on communicating clearly, staying calm under pressure and ensuring a willingness to accept and consider feedback.

Another of my big focuses, which I've developed with more emphasis after gaining admin then CheckUser and Oversight rights, is to slow down and collect and review information before making a decision. An example of that in practice, outside of ArbCom, was closing the Hilary Clinton move request where there was a huge volume of comments and policy to consider.

Thoughts on the Committee

For the Committee to work at its most effective, it needs to have a mixture of personalities as well as experience levels. The combination of fresh editors, who bring new ideas and energies, and experienced arbitrators, who can provide advice and institutional memory, allows the Committee to consider decisions in different contexts. I believe that, during my two years on the Committee, I've been able to make a number of positive changes to how the Committee operates with a focus on making things simpler, more easily understood and less bureaucratic. However, there are still things I'd like to do and I still believe there is a place for my work ethic and my positions on different issues.

Disclosures

As I'm already on the Committee, and a checkuser and oversighter, I have signed the WMF's confidentiality agreement and so am compliant with the access to non-public information policy. I have three other accounts, Callanecc (alt), Callanec and Calanecc, which are listed on my user page.

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

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2017 candidate: Callanecc Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

2. Hello, my question is simple; how will you correct the arbitrary removal of musical/band articles by specific types of 'editors' who claim a lack of 'notoriety' due to not being able to find some link to another website as somehow being the only standard WikiPedia excepts? I personally barely, if at all in my original works, will cite a website, with some exceptions. The arbitrary attitudes of these types of 'editors' is the reason that the Wiki has a serious lack of editors, who have the time and energy to correctly and with good faith write articles, to fill those missing ones, are falling by the way side. To be specific the individual attitudes of Admin Editors who have very little care for the efforts of others, regardless of some attempt at a non-biased and neutral Wiki adherence. I consider the complete body of works by musicians and bands to be the goal, not some mistaken interpretation on 'notoriety' on a specific album/song, and therefore it to be omitted. How will you deal with this matter in the Wiki Admin sphere post haste?Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 01:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   As Definitely not. I've generally been in the group of arbs which is more willing to accept than decline cases. Part of my reasoning for this is that, when well handled, arbitration cases can have the effect of clearing the air in a dispute and definitely do not need to result in any sanctions being passed.

4. If an administrator has openly stated a strong aversion to an editor's article edits on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   As I said in 2015, the administrator is probably not impartial based only on the very short summary you've written. A more detailed and final decision is going to depend on what the comments actually are, and why they were made.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, ought there be a delay to give that editor sufficient time to address "new evidence"?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, ought space and time for rebuttal be given?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

   a. It depends. Many editors come up with many reasons why they can't face a case at that particular time, most of what they say just needs to be taken at face value which can be used as a reason to avoid a case. The Committee in recent years (including before I was elected) has suspended cases while editors are away, or has just extended the length of different phases to accommodate them. That seems like a good compromise between moving forward with a case and giving the editor time.

   b. Almost always, yes.

   c. Generally yes, but it depends if the evidence is going to make a difference to the arbs' opinions or if it, or something similar, has already been rebutted.

   d. I can think of a some situations where new evidence in a PD would be appropriate and could happen. It could be that new evidence has come to light since the workshop closed, or it could be something which an arbitrator found while writing the proposed decision. Arbitration cases don't need to be adversarial, there is scope for them to be more inquisitorial. I don't believe that it would be appropriate, however, for that evidence to be voted on in a proposed decision without giving that editor a chance to comment on it.

2. So, what did you learn about ArbCom over the last two years? If you were King of the Universe, what would you change about the ArbCom process?

   It's harder and there's lot more happening that I thought there would be. We've almost always got at least 10 things happening at once and that's in addition to any requests we've got onwiki. of the everyday decisions made on the Committee are relatively simple and quick, but occasionally we get one which is impossibly difficult and both options aren't great. The necessity to build a consensus within the Committee can also be difficult, especially since it's generally not one consensus at a time. It's a competition between the three decisions which need to be made at the time, and the onwiki and offwiki commitments of the volunteers who need to discuss each of them to come up with a consensus. If I quickly count at the moment we've got about 6 things we're actively trying to discuss and get consensus on, plus more on the back burner.
   So the thing I'd change, I'd make the Committee paid employees so that they have the time they need to do the job.

2. Thank you for standing again! I liked your answer last time. If you want you can say if you agree with Opabinia regalis here, beyond your explanation of changing your vote to my liking? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I've changed the diff you had of me changing my vote. The one you had there was a link to something Fram posted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I disagree with the broad point of OR's first paragraph. A discussion being closed recently doesn't indicate that the community has dealt with something. It shows that the community is trying. If it follows a number of other discussions on the same thing which haven't solved the issue I'd contend that it shows the opposite - that the community hasn't been able to solve the issue.

   I agree with the broad point of OR's second paragraph.

   I didn't agree with OR's third paragraph initially as Joe had had chances in the past to change his behaviour (similar to DeltaQuad's argument).

   There were two things which made me change my mind to decline. The first is that Joe had demonstrated an awareness of the issues in his behaviour and had come up with a reasonable plan to avoid it. The second was that I didn't believe that enough arbs wanted to have a case on the subject. So continuing to support one, and hence prevent anything happening with the request, wasn't the best approach for me to take, given that I was already being swung by the arguments to suspend the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. What do you believe are the biggest errors of judgement that the Arbitration Committee have displayed previously as a collective body. In your answer, please give examples from both your time on the committee, and from before your time serving on the committee. Discuss how you would have approach the issues with the benefit of hindsight, how things might have been done differently and if re-elected, how you would try to limit these errors.

   I'm not sure I've found the "biggest" issues but these are the ones I could think of relatively quickly.

   Pre-2016: I think this remedy is one of the strangest I've seen (I remembered it as I submitted a clarification request about it). "Automation" an impossibly large thing and it's impossibly defined in the remedy. I think it actually informed somewhat my process of drafting proposed decisions. I've tried, as much as I can, that I seek feedback from both the rest of the Committee as well as the community so that the decisions are as clear as they can be.

   My term: I feel slightly awkward about this as I'm effectively bashing my colleagues, but here goes. I think the number of changes to the Palestine-Israeli 'consensus-required', '1RR' and '500/30' remedies over the past few years is a little ridiculous. As I mentioned above, I think the way to avoid issues like this in the future is to ensure that proposals get feedback from others, and in situations were the remedy is known to be contentious (or complicated) spend some time working out an option (inventing a way to do it if necessary) which is going to work and be clear to the people who need to abide by and enforce it.

4. What do you believe are the biggest errors of judgement that you have displayed yourself whilst acting as an arbitrator and as a functionary. Discuss how you would have approach the issues with the benefit of hindsight, how things might have been done differently and if re-elected, how you would try to limit these errors. I ask this primarily to evaluate your suitability to serve as an arbitrator, but also to provide some useful information/answers for any first time arbitrators who may be elected.

   There are general, 'I read that wrong' instances, like changing votes when I'd though it through a little more (not including times I've changed my mind based on arguments of colleagues). Something easily solved by waiting and thinking on things in more depth.

   Probably my biggest goof was in relation to the proposal I made about changing how advanced permissions can be removed. I think in that instance I read the feeling of the Committee and somewhat the community incorrectly. Part of the reason it collapsed is because I hadn't spent time asking my colleagues for their thoughts on particular aspects of the proposal before I proposed it publicly.
   That's not to hard to avoid in the future as, and I'd encourage all arbs to do this, it's important to first discuss with, and gather a rough consensus from, the rest of the Committee on something you want to change before proposing it. It's also important to consider that there is a belief in the community that any motion an arb proposes is coming from the Committee as a whole rather than an individual. Therefore, ensuring that, when proposing motions, it's crystal clear whether the motion is coming from Committee discussions or an individual is important.

1. The arbitration policy states that arbitrators are expected to recuse themselves from proceedings if they have a conflict of interest. What do you consider conflicts of interest? Are there any situations that may be considered COI "grey areas" that you have an opinion on?

   I see that section of ARBPOL as a reflection of WP:INVOLVED. Basically if an arbitrator believes that they are unable to be neutral in a decision, or there is the appearance that they aren't, or won't, be neutral.
   One of the grey areas related to that though, is around the appearance of non-neutrality as the perspective from which it is viewed matters considerably. In that situation the arb involved really needs to decide whether they are neutral or not, and if they believe they are whether their decisions will have the support of the rest of the Committee and the community.
   Another large grey area which comes up relatively frequently is about what "routine" interactions are. In that circumstance, the same litmus test should apply as above.

3. There is currently no requirement that ArbCom members have to be administrators, but historically every arbitrator has also been an admin. Do you see any value in having non-administrators on the commitee, why/why not? (I'm especially interested in answers from non-admin nominees)

   Non-admins provide a different perspective on Wikipedia due to their different experience of contributing. They bring an effectively unique perspective to the analysis of evidence and to decision-making. The biggest con though is technical, a non-admin is limited in what they can do, mainly around not being able to see deleted contribs. That makes their job more difficult, and would likely mean that other arbs would need to copy over deleted stuff for them to see. There's been a suggestion that non-admin arbs be given the sysop bit during their term but I actually think that that would ruin the point of having the non-admin voice on the Committee (if they would be an admin).

5. Do you think that administrators or users in good standing who generally contribute to the project in a constructive manner should be given more leeway when it comes to sanctions against them (also referred to as the Super Mario problem)? If not, do you think this happens currently, and if so, what can be done to prevent it?

   The consideration which needs to be made when deciding whether to sanction someone is whether it would make Wikipedia a better place for others in the community and/or the people reading the articles if the sanction applied. If the answer is yes, then I'm likely going to support the sanction. If someone has edited positively and has a one-off brain-fart then not sanctioning them is likely going to be the best outcome for the project.
   I think the last few Committees have done pretty well at getting past the Super Mario problem by making decisions based on the evidence rather than the userrights someone has. I know we've had some discussions about it in specific situations on the mailing list while I've been an arb. Really the only way to get past it is for those doing the enforcing (including ArbCom) to ignore the userrights when making decisions. I've asked myself a few times: 'if they weren't a sysop, would I vote to ban them?'

2. Officially, Arbcom is supposed to deal primarily with conduct disputes, not content, and to interpret and apply policy, not make it. But it has always seemed to me that most conduct disputes have their origin in disagreements over content, and that Arb Com has in fact been most successful when actually dealing with content concerns, as in the pseudoscience and nationalism related cases, even though it may have to word it indirectly. And it has also always seemed to me that the necessary interpretation of policy can in effect amount to making policy, as with the cases involving BLP. What do you think? DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi David, as we've discussed in the past I agree that some of the disputes we get have their basis in conduct disputes. I'd also guess that the number of those about content has decreased in recent years (as discretionary sanctions tend to deal with these issues fairly well).

   However, as I've also said, I disagree that we make decisions directly on content (that is, we don't say the article is to say x based on source 1 and source 2). Our role, is to decide which editors have followed policy and in so doing interpret and apply relevant policies. Interpreting a policy isn't making a policy. If it were, then many government organisations wouldn't be able to operate as effectively as they can (schools, which interpret a curriculum, are an example which comes to mind). Having said that, though, I think the number of cases which have focused on the type of content disputes you mention) has decreased in the past few years. This is probably partially due to the more robust set of policies we have (that is, there are many fewer 'gaps') and the more robust enforcement procedures the project has.

   I wouldn't say that sanctioning one side of a disagreement is saying that the other side of the dispute about content is "correct". Things like POV-pushing, misrepresenting sources (and reliable sources) and failing to discuss issues are conduct issues, but obviously a decision that an editor is doing that (and sanctioning them) is going to have an effect on the content in articles.

   It's a good thing, that, historically, the side of a dispute the majority would say is "correct" is the side which hasn't regularly been sanctioned or Wikipedia would likely be a different place.

4. There have been very few actual arb com cases in the last few years, which might indicate that the community is doing better with its problems, and that the basic rules are becoming well understood. It seems to me that most of the business at arb com has been dealing with ban appeals, which is done on the mailing list, and often involves considerations of privacy. I'm not sure we do very well at this. Based on your own experience at arb com, what do you think about this? DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   Not necessarily just ban appeals, but yeah I agree we end up doing quite a bit on the mailing list dealing with issues where privacy is a concern. I'd also suggest that the issues we deal with are quite a bit more complicated then they have been in the past. This is partially due to the more robust policies and enforcement procedures we've got, in that there's generally a long and intricate history associated with most of the requests (public and not) which come our way.
   I agree that we don't handle those types of issues that well, partially due to the difficulties associated with using an email mailing list and that intricacies of the issues we deal with. I'd probably add to that the large number of different opinions on those issues from arbitrators and the difficulties in getting enough participation and in consensus building.

6. When I joined arb com 3 years ago, most arbs thought that the terms of use were not necessarily enforceable policy at the English Wikipedia, and that arb com has no role in its enforcement. I strongly disagreed at the time--I think they are inherently policy to the extent they are applicable, and arb com has the same jurisdiction as for other behavioral policy. (Of course, we may want or need to interpret it further--and certainly can extend it.) To some degree, I think it possible that the prevailing opinion may have been changing a little towards the position I hold. Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   As I've said on the mailing list and in an answer in 2015. The WP:TOU is an enwiki policy so can be enforced. It's important to note as well that the extent to which it is enforced (and different parts of it are enforced) is dependent on the context.

8. As I see it, most arbs are of the opinion that the requirement that editors avoid outing applied equally to good faith and bad faith editors. I however think that it ought to be interpreted to apply with much less rigor to those who appear to be editing in bad faith or deliberately against the terms of use. (I recognize the difficulty in deciding initially who is editing in bad faith) Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   The thing about outing is that once it's done it's almost impossible to undo. If someone is outed, and it's then realised that they weren't actually editing in bad faith, there's no coming back from that. We have seen in the two years on the Committee that outing can and does lead to real world harassment. Why would we want to allow a situation where any editor can justify their outing of another editor by arguing that they were editing in bad faith (undisclosed paid editing or something else). I agree, especially as an experienced checkuser, that it can sometimes be tempting, and that there can be a perceived benefit, to apply a different standard to some editors who are editing in bad faith. That, in itself, is a violation of the TOU (Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, violation of privacy) and risks the irrevocable harm I mentioned above.

2. You voted for the unban of User:Guido den Broeder, and failed to give any reasoning or explanation for this (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Guido den Broeder). Why did you support the unban of a repeatedly banned sockmaster with a myriad of editing problems over many years and some very wacky ideas? Why was the voting on this unban not made public (who voted for or against, and who recused or didn't participate)? Would you handle things differently in a similar situation in the future?

   Hi Fram, I was largely inactive during the discussion on the noticeboard talk page and was only vaguely aware of that discussion. By the time I was back and read through it all of the arguments had been hashed and rehashed and it had effectively finished with your comment that nothing more useful was likely to come out of it.

   Eight/Five years (depending how you look at) is a reasonably significant period of time. So if a user presents an understanding of what they did wrong and how they'd avoid it in the future, plus says that they want to edit a relatively mild area I'm generally more inclined to give them a go. That's especially when the user in question is willing to discuss and willingly agrees to unban conditions/sanctions.

   I was actually quite surprised that it wasn't announced on ACN as is standard for any decisions by the Committee (with some very limited exceptions), I suspect that was an oversight rather than intentional. When I was clerk, I remember criticising to the (then) Committee for unbanning editors without announcing announcing it so I absolutely agree with that aspect. Regarding not announcing who votes (etc) that seems to come in waves in the Committee, and different arbs do different things when announcing things. I am absolutely one of the arbs who will argue for all of the details (who votes etc) to be included in all of the announcements. In fact I've made the argument that we should be doing it every time we make an announcement in the interest of transparency and accountability, but have lost that a few times for different announcements.

   Hopefully that answered your question? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Thank you. Like I said at the reban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290#User Roadcreature / Guido den Broeder, the issues weren't 8 or 5 years old, but less than 2 years: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roadcreature/Archive. So you start from a completely wrong position. "if a user presents an understanding of what they did wrong": have they? As far as I can tell, they still denied socking and showed little understanding of the problems that lead to the ban. "how they'd avoid it in the future"; which they didn't ("In conclusion, I have yet to see a single diff of any wrongdoing on my part. The same was true in 2009."). "says that they want to edit a relatively mild area": No one has yet said which area they claimed to want to edit, so I can't judge whether they said one thing and did another (which should have been noticed if you had followed his edits somewhat), or whether they edited exactly what they announced they would edit (which should have set up red warning bells from the start and would have been a good reason never to unban). I don't believe you (personally and probably collectively) have actually learned anything from this episode, which is why I will oppose your candidacy (though you are not the worst candidate by far). Sorry, no question here, just a reply to your post.

   Obviously we aren't operating from the same level of knowledge about the background here. I was looking at Guido's emails to the list and related discussions, plus what I looked onwiki (and mailing list) from the past. In comparison, you had first-hand knowledge and experience.

   In effect, unban requests are about being able to convince those reviewing them that you've changed/understand. Based on the discussions on the mailing list I was comfortable that that was the case. It is true that that isn't/wasn't actually the case. There are really two camps you can be in when reviewing unban requests - lean towards to editor telling the truth (good faith), or lean towards the editor not telling the truth (bad faith). As I've said (since my RfA), I am in the lean towards good faith camp (when there aren't serious conduct issues involved - such as outing or harassment). Sometimes an editor requesting an unban will be able to convince people they've changed and then when they start editing won't do what they've said they'll do and get reblocked. Unblocking/Unbanning someone and giving them some space to either prove themselves capable or incapable of contributing (as I said, when there aren't serious issues) is how I would prefer to look at this type of request. Since then, though, I've tried to look in more depth at requests and be more critical of what they're saying. Keeping in mind that was, and still is to a lesser extent, a gap in procedure to address unban requests, the Committee has been more willing (noting that a consensus needs to be built among arbs to ask the community for comments) to seek feedback from the community before unbanning an editor. However that isn't always possible. I sorry I won't have your support, but that's my perspective on dealing with unban requests.

2. On this page, I have drafted some detailed proposals (already written as formal motions) which would reform ArbCom's policies and procedures. As an arbitrator, would you propose and/or vote for these motions? If you only support some of the proposals, please name the ones that you support and the ones that you do not support. If you do not support a particular proposal, please elaborate as to what, if anything, would make the proposal acceptable to you.

   ArbCom responsibility: I wouldn't support that suggestion, there is a massive amount of stuff that the Committee deals with that the WMF would not be able to handle and which would not be appropriate for the community (including ArbCom) to abdicate responsibility for. Likewise, removing the Committee's role in overseeing CheckUser and Oversight access would effectively make our local CU & OS policies unenforceable, as the ombudsman commission doesn't have jurisdiction to enforce local policies. Likewise, removing the Committee from appointing checkusers and oversighters could also lead to situations where we just don't have enough people in the roles. In any case, neither should be started until there is alternative in place which has been thoroughly tested.

   ArbCom procedures: 1. See above.
   2. I support the gist of this one, and have proposed something similarly internally a few times to no avail. One of the reasons it hasn't succeeded is that other arbs have felt that the whole Committee should decide on the scope which can present some significant consensus building difficulties.
   3. This has been discussed before (onwiki I believe), and it didn't happen as there was a preference for having evidence finalised before proposals are suggested. From memory, this was around avoiding a fait accompli type situation and so that parties don't have so much to respond to at the same time.
   4. A very interesting idea, and worthy of further discussion. Could lead to quite long lists of parties and an unwillingness among community members from submitting evidence. (See comment on word limits below).
   5. Different Committees have different preferences regarding word limits. When I first became a clerk it was reasonable lax, then it became more strict and the rough consensus at the moment is that strictly enforcing word limits can sometimes do more harm than good. The purpose of comments from the community, limited how much can be said can make it more difficult for arbs as, if an editor is giving good info/evidence/etc, then limiting them makes the arbs' jobs more difficult. If an editor is posting heaps of stuff which isn't that helpful, it can either be ignored, or if the Committee really wants the clerks can deal with it. We currently decide whether to have sectioned discussion on case talk pages on a case-by-case basis, I think that this is the best way to do it as it allows conditions to be targeted to the circumstances of the case. Including something about the clerks is probably a good idea, as it's not really spelt out in detail in the ArbCom Procedures.

   Arbitration enforcement: Not sure that this is really needed, we've had cases and heaps of discussion about this and general agreement has been that AE is supposed to be a quick process and that it needs to be less bureaucratic not more complicated. Likewise, sanctions are intended to be able to applied by an admin without going through WP:AE. We don't want a difference to be created between going to an admin's talk page and posting at WP:AE (which could introduce an opportunity to game the system). I believe that the "Expectations of administrators" section in the Committee's procedures adequately covers this area.

   Community motions: This just seems to be a more bureaucratic and complicated way of the community making suggestions to change the internal procedures of the Committee. This can be similarly achieved by filing an amendment request at ARCA. In a way, an amendment request at ARCA only needs one arb to "endorse" it by officially proposing the motion for the Committee to vote on.

2. Hi. Thanks for stepping forward. I am asking this same question to all candidates. What can the committee do that the rest of the community cannot? SilkTork (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi SilkTork, primarily the Committee is able to review matters which is the community is either unable to review or it is not practical for the community to review. This includes issues which the community is unable to review due to the private nature of the material, and to review situations where the community is unable to find consensus to deal with. In both instances, the Committee is better able to handle these issues as it is a smaller, more focused body, which are also 'qualified' to handle private information.

2. I’m asking all candidates this question and will use the answers to make a voter guide. Please state whether you will enforce the Terms of Use section on ‘’’paid editing’’’. Should all undeclared paid editors be blocked (after one warning)? Are administrators allowed to accept payment for using their tools for a non-Wiki employer? Can admins do any paid editing and still maintain the neutrality needed to do their work? (Note that only one admin AFAIK has declared as a paid editor since the ToU change). Do you consider the work done at WP:COIN to be useful, or is it just another “drama board”? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Smallbones, I've answered similar questions about the TOU in 2015 and above. The TOU are for our purposes an enwiki policy (per WP:TOU) so can be enforced on enwiki (as a policy). An arb's job is to interpret (including the interactions between policies), enforce and apply policies and I would, if re-elected, continue to do that.
   If it can be proved that the editor is being paid then yes they can be blocked IMHO, whether they are blocked or not is, as blocks always should, depend on the specific circumstance.

   I'm going to be relatively broad in my answer to the last bit as I don't want to appear to pre-judge the current case request as I will likely be ruling on it as an arb. Administrators are expected to uphold high standards of behaviour. Any editor with advanced permissions is expected to use them in accordance with community policies, if they're being paid to use them I'd question whether they would have developed a significant-enough COI to make them INVOLVED in that topic area. If the admin has properly disclosed and they are very careful to avoid using their tools in the area in which they are paid editing then I wouldn't necessarily have a reason to desysop them. Having said that, it's going to depend very significantly on the circumstances.

   That depends on your definition of a drama board and whether you think that drama boards can still sometimes be useful. I think on a project which has an increasing focus on ensuring that editors have a neutral point of view, COIN has a place in bring attention to articles and editors where a COI may exist so that other editors, who are neutral, can review the article/editor's contribs. I think it's important that COIN's role is focused on content rather than conduct which can be can be difficult to fully discuss in public.

2. Viewpoint 1: Policy should be interpreted as it is written and enforced as such. If the goals are not being met then the policy should be reviewed and perhaps changed but in the meantime this is the status quo. Viewpoint 2: Policy should be interpreted for its intent over the wording. Where conflict arises between wording and intent, either do not enforce or possibly customize enforcement to try to achieve the intent per IAR. How would you describe your own viewpoint relative to the two opposing views above?
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Berean! Policy should reflect the common practice within the community. If it doesn't then a discussion should be held as to whether or not the policy should be changed. In another way, if people are using IAR to get around the policy then the community needs to make a decision as to whether the policy doesn't adequately reflect reality, or that the situation called for a different decision/action. On a project such as this, where there are many people editing from a range of backgrounds and skill levels it is important that policy is clear. If there is a conflict between the wording and intent then that should be addressed through discussion. Whether the wording or the intent is enforced is going to depend a lot of the situation. For example, questions around whether the intent was obvious, what the person considered in their decision to go intent instead of the wording (or vice versa), how different is the intent to the wording, why is it worded that way. In general, though, I'd say I'm probably be more with viewpoint 2 than blind enforcement of the wording (especially since that would also effectively discounts IAR).