Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/SMcCandlish/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Per WP:ACERFC2020, starting this year 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.

Question from Gerda

 * Follow-up discussion moved to discussion page per new rules this year. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow-up discussion moved to discussion page per new rules this year. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung
I'm asking all  candidates the same questions.
 * Thank you for your comprehensive and candid answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comprehensive and candid answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comprehensive and candid answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Newslinger

 * Thank you, SMcCandlish, for your detailed response. —  Newslinger  talk   10:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SMcCandlish, for your detailed response. —  Newslinger  talk   10:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Calidum
1. The recent anti-harassment RFC was closed with several findings related to "unblockable" users. Do you agree with those findings and how would you address them?  This'll be long, since it's a four-part close that poorly summarizes very complex material with a whole lot of implications. One really has to pore over the entire subthread (and cross-references to it) in the larger RfC. For one thing, I have to agree with RfC respondents that there are multiple distinct sorts of "unblockable" (more accurately "unbannable" and, a related but distinct matter, "un-desysoppable") preferential treatment, which have to be resolved differently (at least in part), because the causes and results of the problem differ for each class of case. Despite (if not ) the length and breadth of that eight-part "mega-RfC", the number of respondents is actually quite low for the importance level of all the matters raised, and the discussions are mostly dominated (not always toward consensus-building, versus grandstanding) by a much smaller subset of that already limited group. Each of its questions and the results-so-far regarding them should be separately re-RfCed, with a lot of "advertising" (CENT, etc.) to solicit clarifying and more diverse input before ArbCom or the community considers them fully decided matters. While some of the above analyses (and the proposed solutions on the talk page) are just my opinion, I think it's clear that the close does not entirely accurately assess the consensus of RfC Q7 (at least) nor express it very usefully. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 

Questions from A7V2
I am asking the same questions to all candidates.

Question from ProcrastinatingReader

 * Great answer, thanks and gl! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great answer, thanks and gl! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Optional question from Dreamy Jazz

 * Thank you for your answer. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Atsme

 * If I didn't like what you were saying, I'd slap a quick tl;dr on it. Seriously, your thoroughness, critical thinking skills and superb communication skills are very much appreciated, as is your caution. Thank you!  Atsme 💬 📧 17:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow-up discussion moved to discussion page per new rules this year. Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If I didn't like what you were saying, I'd slap a quick tl;dr on it. Seriously, your thoroughness, critical thinking skills and superb communication skills are very much appreciated, as is your caution. Thank you!  Atsme 💬 📧 17:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow-up discussion moved to discussion page per new rules this year. Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear
Follow-up question 1 (to my q2)

Questions from StraussInTheHouse
While retention of productive editors and administrators is rightly considered important for the continuation of the project, the conduct of all editors, especially trusted users such as administrators is also rightly considered important for the retention of other users. I consider these two issues which are, unfortunately, often intertwined to be the most pressing types of issues to the project which ArbCom tends to deal with. I am therefore asking all of the candidates the same questions irrespective of whether they are a former Arbitrator. Many thanks and all the best with the election!  SITH   (talk)   11:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1. In the first three months of this year, three administrators were desysopped following three separate cases (1, 2, 3). Did ArbCom decide each of these cases correctly and why?  The deets will be long, but the conclusion is not., though differential treatment across the cases is "interesting". In the long run, the more willing ArbCom is to desysop for ADMINCOND failures, even when many editors won't agree with sanctions against their wikibuddies, then the less of a hellhole RfA eventually will be, with many community members eager to reinstate the bit as long as the once-and-future-admin indicates understanding of why they were sanctioned and what they'll do to avoid a repeat of problem behavior. Adminship becoming "no big deal" again is a chicken-and-egg problem, and will only improve very incrementally. Cases like these are one such increment. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC) </dd></ol>

Question from The Land

 * thank you for that very thorough response. The Land (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for that very thorough response. The Land (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question from Epiphyllumlover

 * Thank you for these details, and for explaining in another message to me with clarification that ArbCom cannot make policy in areas that have not previously been decided. That is especially what I was looking for.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these details, and for explaining in another message to me with clarification that ArbCom cannot make policy in areas that have not previously been decided. That is especially what I was looking for.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Robert McClenon
Being asked of all candidates