Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Sdrqaz

Sdrqaz

Hi there. I'm Sdrqaz, an editor of nearly seven years and an administrator.

Just as when I became an administrator, I am running in this election because there is important work that needs to be done, and I believe I can make a difference.

The Committee and wider community need and deserve someone who is thorough and willing to do work that receives little recognition. We need someone who is willing to do the utmost to protect the project, while conscious that actions we take to protect the encyclopaedia can feel deeply personal and often lead to disillusionment and retirement.

I believe I am that person.

My work has led to five articles going on the Main Page, with two more on the way – I have written on legal and parliamentary procedure, crime novels, an Iraqi defector, and a play on a certain cuddly Japanese forest spirit. While my duty to the community as an administrator has meant that I cannot spend as much time as I would like writing, protecting the encyclopaedia has been my governing principle, be it literally protecting articles or elsewhere.

The Committee, both collectively and individually, is entrusted with grave responsibilities and powers. While there are times when it must act swiftly and decisively, its duty of care must shine in everything it does. The Committee must act with caution and be clear communicators with the community, as the Committee serves it above all else. I spend much time reading discussions but only participating when I feel that my input is needed; I will bring this care and readiness to listen to the table. As a representative of the English Wikipedia, I will also advocate for its interests and autonomy when interacting with other bodies in the global movement.

I look forward to listening to the community and welcome its questions.

Sdrqaz (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Pursuant to election regulations, I confirm that I have signed the confidentiality agreement, having met the access to non-public personal data policy. I have only ever edited using this account and an alternate account for public devices. I additionally have an unused Doppelgänger account.

• Sdrqaz (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=}}

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 Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   My apologies for the delay in responding – I was away from my computer on the 23rd and should have provided an update on this and will do better. At a basic level, INVOLVED aims to provide fairness by preventing someone who may have clouded judgement by prior involvement from acting in an administrative capacity. I view this prohibition as one of the fundamental principles governing administrators – as I have written, adminship is to be used for the community, not for one's selfish interests.

   For Principle 7 of Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block (2022), I would quibble that there was a discrepancy between the text of the policy and the principle – for me, it is not the same to say that "the community has historically endorsed" versus calling it "[t]he sole listed exception". While we know that policies reflect consensus, and not the other way around, citing precedent is not the same as saying that an action is absolutely fine. As for the application of said principle, I would agree with the Committee's actions, both in the findings of fact and the remedies. TheresNoTime was quite clearly involved, be it due to their role in the RfA or be it due to their subsequent messages to Athaenara. The two factors combined made the involvement beyond dispute (or at least it should have). Based on the votes on Remedy 4, it seems that for the majority of those supporting, the removal of CheckUser was more based on TheresNoTime's behaviour following the tool use instead of due to violations of administrative policy – in an alternate universe, it would seem that the violation of INVOLVED alone would have led to a warning/admonishment instead of removal of both CheckUser and Oversight. While I was mildly surprised to see TheresNoTime's Oversight being removed, I think I would have voted in favour of doing so based on the entirety of what transpired. As for the proposed desysop, many of the votes seem to have focused on another aspect of administrative policy when I believed that the salient issue was involvement. While I think I would have voted against it as excessive, I don't believe I would have done so as readily as many Committee members did.

   Principle 13 of Manning naming dispute (2013) seems to a little short to me (a "modern" Committee would probably list those three sub-principles as separate ones, fleshing them out further), but overall they seem to have been intended as high-level summaries and are factually correct. The involvement-related parts of the finding of fact seem reasonable, as does the admonishment. The indefinite tool restriction on transgender topics is interesting in the sense that is simultaneously broad (not just Manning and not time-limited) and narrow (not a topic ban). While reading through the case, my instinct was that I wouldn't have voted for it because it was based on a single incident; however, as I have written, the need for the community to have faith in administrators' impartiality in these fraught areas is important. As a result of that and the fact that the point of INVOLVED is to minimise decisions clouded by personal emotions, I think that it was the right action. Given that the issues of misconduct stemmed from a single area, I think I would have voted against the desysop as I believe that the tool restriction (a more tailored solution) would have stopped disruption – as I have written, there seems to be a modern trend towards desysopping administrators in misconduct cases. If the restriction had proven unsuccessful, I think I would have been receptive to a case focused on David Gerard, with a desysop very much on the table.

   I think that the age of Climate change (2010) shows a little in the length and extra information when compared to the policy at the time. The principles regarding involvement are a little unfocused and I think I would have proposed alternatives that got at the heart of the issue. Finding of fact 4 seems reasonable, as does the other findings of fact regarding involvement, but I think that lack of diffs supporting Finding of Fact 13.1 is worrying, and I certainly would not have voted for it without diffs in the finding. While a significant improvement on proposed finding 13.0 (which lacked a lot of extenuating information and nuance), it still wasn't good enough. Remedy 9.2 was rightly rejected. While it should be commended for being willing to have some nuance, it unfortunately made things less clear. As for the other involvement-related remedies, I think that asking Stephan Schulz to refrain from further administrative involvement was the right move. As for Lar, to me it felt strange that there were various findings of fact regarding them but no specific remedy – an admonishment would have hopefully worked, but I think perhaps asking them to disengage from the subject area was something that should have been given more serious consideration.

Questions from Izno

2. As an arb, you will have to deal with messes which often have a lot of reading attached to them. Some of them will be the reasonably ordered messes most cases are. Some of them won't be. One mess I regularly think about is this case request (last revision before archival and first revision). Assuming (for simplicity's sake) that the entire discussion was held onwiki, can you share some thoughts on how you might have responded to the original case request, the changes in aggregate that occurred while the request open, and the ultimate case request? Izno (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I think that my initial response to the original case request, after reading through the prior discussions, would have been to ask why Jehochman had brought the case before the Committee before other "higher-level" routes of dispute resolution (such as AE – covered by Digwuren / Eastern Europe – or ANI) had not been exhausted, as it had not yet been proven that the community was unable to resolve it – of the routes used, only one noticeboard was claimed to have been used, and COIN is (from prior experience) not particularly well-frequented by administrators.

   While the filer invoked "another hydra head" from Eastern European mailing list, the issue with the comparison is that although one of the parties is the same and it was also related to Eastern Europe, the 2009 case was more about stealth canvassing and the case request was regarding users allegedly acting with a conflict of interest to remove references to a newspaper article and whether it was reliable due to the sources it used. There didn't seem to be any allegations of stealth canvassing, so to me it was unclear why it was being brought up again. The 2009 case had a stronger argument for Committee jurisdiction due to the private evidence, while the case request as written seemed to be focused on a relatively narrow matter. I would have waited for other editors' input (as well as the filer's) before deciding on what to do with the case request. Digging further simply based on that initial request, I would be concerned that one of the sources used by the article was a user that had been banned by both the Arbitration Committee and the Foundation. While the article was mainly sympathetic to said user, Jehochman appeared to make it seem as if it was critical of them.

   Changes in aggregate as the case progressed include the COIN discussion being closed (archive) and Jehochman posting a message on behalf of the banned user. At that point, I think I would lean further towards declining the case request as written – the close meant that the community has attempted to resolve the issue and some chance should be given to see if it would prove successful. I would also make clear my concern towards Jehochman for posting that message. However, on the wider issue, I would have to investigate further if a case were necessary on a general Polish World War II scope, as disputes were/are evidently ongoing. Ultimately, the Arbitration Committee has been elected to deal with intractable disputes, and I would feel compelled to not pass the buck / kick the can down the road if I felt that the community was unable to deal with the issue. Significant work would be needed in such a case to keep it focused.

   Looking at the final revision of the case and the successful motion, I cannot help but feel that some of the remedies were toothless – while the good intentions behind asking users to return to the area are admirable, I don't think that it would have led to any meaningful change. While the amendments to the original motion help it a bit (explicitly allowing requests directly to ARCA by both non-administrators and administrators), the measures seem insufficient to me. As for the supplemental motions, I feel that a full case should have been opened to deal with each of the editors (including Jehochman – even though I feel that he was rightfully admonished and the decision to do so was justifiable as the evidence was limited to what happened in the case request, in the end he deserved the Committee to go through the dispute properly).

Questions from TheresNoTime

2. How do you foresee the role of the Arbitration Committee changing with regard to the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct (namely, due to the enforcement guidelines, and the introduction of the global Coordinating Committee)? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   In my opinion, the Code itself is largely redundant to our existing policies and guidelines on the English Wikipedia, and is apparently aimed towards smaller projects with less-rigorous oversight. Therein lies the problem – we would have two bodies tasked with investigating violations of sets of norms that are significantly overlapping on the English Wikipedia. With the creation of this new body, I fear that the Arbitration Committee's autonomy with regards to policy violations by editors may be infringed by the Coordinating Committee. The text of the proposed enforcement guidelines is unfortunately unclear – it calls the Coordinating Committee a "co-equal body with other high-level decision making bodies", but also states that it will be "final recourse in the case of systematic failures by local groups to enforce the UCoC". If a body is court of last resort, is it not therefore effectively superior and not "co-equal"?

   While on the bright side it states that the first place to appeal an action by an administrator/functionary is the Arbitration Committee, its stated role of "[p]rovid[ing] a final interpretation of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the UCoC" seems to confirm that although the Coordinating Committee is being presented as ostensibly an equal partner to the Arbitration Committee, at the end of the day it is being given the ability to overrule it. In a worst-case scenario, this may lead to tussles over the English Wikipedia's ability to self-govern and encroachment on our jurisdiction due to dissatisfaction over the Arbitration Committee's actions.

4. Is ANI pronounced A-N-I or Annie? Thank you for standing, and good luck. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I pronounce it as A-N-I, as an initialism. I'd be more receptive to the alternative if the shortcut were ANNI or ANY, but we don't live in that world.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

2. Do you believe that we still have infobox wars? If yes, do you have better ideas than the 2013 arb ruling to end them?

   I don't think that we do, or at least not on the scale as the ones that led to Infoboxes (2013) and Civility in infobox discussions (2018). Looking at the AE log this year, Paige (wrestler) was sanctioned under that remedy, but I would argue that it was more of a Footnoted quotes / Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case than an infoboxes issue. In September last year, Stanley Kubrick was protected, but eventually a discussion in November was in favour of having an infobox. In 2019 and 2020, there were three enforcement actions logged, one of which was about Kubrick. To me, an article with long-running disputes about whether it should have an infobox now having a consensus (without discussions spiralling out of control) seems to imply that while there are strong feelings on both sides of the dispute, the issue isn't as unmanageable as it was. However, I would say that there are issues around specific parameters of infoboxes (people making changes to dates of birth/death and genres of music happen constantly), but nothing that rises to a level of needing intervention from the Committee.

4. Thank you for having looked into the AE business even. I agree that there are strong feelings on one side. I don't know a single user with "strong feelings" to have an infobox, - I at least just try to make an article more accessible when I add one, and I have learned (the hard way, by arbitration restriction) to add them to articles I write or improve, rather than to those of others with the strong feelings. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   I was aware of that discussion when I wrote my previous answer, but it hadn't been closed at that point. I think that the RfC benefitted from having a formal structure and greater input from the wider community when compared to the previous discussion on that page, which went from December 2020 to May 2022. That being said, as with most disputes in contentious areas with many participants, there were some unpleasant statements being made about editors' motivations and stances. Time will tell whether that discussion ends the conflict on that article – I notice that during the RfC and in its wake, there were some attempts to short-circuit the discussion and some disagreements since on specific parameters.

Thank you, you won my confidence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

For fairness, and I don't think I'll change my support. I haven't voted yet because one candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from BilledMammal

2. Would you ever support a principle or finding of fact that is based on the Universal Code of Conduct?

   As I've written above, much of the Code is redundant to our local policies and guidelines. As a result, I can see a situation where I would support a principle or finding of fact that is based on local policy, but also indirectly based on the Code. If the Code is specifically relevant (and our local policies and guidelines have somehow not covered the matter), I suppose I could see myself supporting if I thought it were appropriate, but I would much rather support something based on English Wikipedia consensus.

Questions from Kudpung

2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?

   Yes. The Committee would be naïve to accept all evidence at face value, without checking its accuracy. As I touched on above, characterisations by participants may not always be accurate and it is the Committee's duty to examine thoroughly each piece of evidence. While diffs are often favoured for supporting definite statements of "they did this" or "they said that", being meticulous would mean reading up on the wider context of the event to be able to get a complete picture, to allow the Committee to make the most well-informed decision possible.

4. In your opinion, are sitting arbitrators exempt from due process if and when they commit an indiscretion that would get a normal editor blocked or sanctioned?

   No. Members of the Committee hold positions of community trust and are functionaries, held to higher standards of behaviour than those without such privileged access. If they are getting anywhere near the point that serious conversations about sanctions are taking place, they should consider their position on the Committee. However, as I've stated before (Q12), the community has long struggled with popular users acting inappropriately. I will do my best to ensure that such due process is followed if such a situation arises.

   Thank you for your answers, Sdrqaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   I hint at this briefly in my statement, but the ability to make a difference is one of the reasons why I edit. It's astonishing that so many people around the world rely on Wikipedia, a volunteer-maintained free encyclopaedia. For them, the most accessible resource is probably our website. The ability to provide that knowledge, be it about things with great weight or something more light-hearted, is important work and I'm proud to be a part of it.

Question from Paradise Chronicle

2. Thanks for volunteering. Could you maybe point to one (a large one is good enough) or two (if you have only solved lesser ones) conflicts which you successfully solved to see your approach to conflicts?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   The first that comes to mind from this month is this request at RfPP – the beginnings of it go back to when an article from 2005 was converted into a redirect in 2018. At the start of this month, it was changed into an article, back to a redirect, back to an article, and back to a redirect before that person went to RfPP with the reason of "Redirect needs protection". I declined, as it would be both against our deletion and protection policies (second sentence of the lead), also asking the user to discuss and seek consensus elsewhere. The article was taken to AfD the next day, where it was kept. Regardless of whether it had ended with that result, I think that my decision was the right thing to do – my role as an administrator is not to favour sides in a content dispute, nor is it to short-circuit consensus.

   The second from this month was at this DYK nomination. There were issues around whether information in that GA could be verified properly, some of which stemmed from a prior version of the article that the author did not write. In addition to speaking to the GA reviewer, I worked together with the author to improve the article and had an amicable dialogue, to their credit. I think that this event showed the value I place in being thorough and in protecting the encyclopaedia, even if the DYK regulations didn't strictly ask for looking through every source and every sentence to verify that the article was accurate.

   Looking back at these events from November, I would say that they were resolved successfully. The first one ended with the rest of the community being given a voice and having an opportunity to discuss the article; this wouldn't have occurred if the redirect had just been protected. The second one ended with an appearance on the Main Page, bringing over 20,000 views to it. More importantly, I am confident that the article was – by extension the encyclopaedia, even if it was only a tiny bit – better at the end of the event.

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   Given that I do not see the relevance of content essays to the Committee, and that there is a strong possibility that my answer may inappropriately influence the result of two open requests for comment, I decline to answer this question. The Committee does not rule on content and its role is not to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Question from Femke

2. Being a party to an Arbcom case can be highly stressful. It's no surprise editors often choose to leave the project after an outcome like a warning or desysop. What do you think the committee can and should do to make the experience less painful for involved editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

   Stress is inherent in conflict. I think that's the case on-wiki and off-wiki, in arbitration or not. However, arbitration brings with it unique pressures. I wrote about the Committee's duty of care and its responsibility to be clear communicators in my statement – a natural part of that is firstly adhering to the deadlines it sets itself, and also being honest when it may fall short of those commitments. If the Committee says that the proposed decision is due on a certain date and it cannot make it in time (real life gets in the way – people get sick, emergencies happen etc), then that must be announced to the community to lessen stress from seeing a promised date come and go without any news.

   Every step must be taken "conscious that actions we take to protect the encyclopaedia can feel deeply personal and often lead to disillusionment and retirement." The way in which we couch our words and opinions can make a big difference in whether a party feels that they are being valued for their volunteer work. Other ways to reduce stress could include removing the workshop phase when it does not seem necessary – recent examples are Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block and Stephen – the wider practice of having a workshop phase at all has also been criticised by former and current Committee members, so further examination of its utility is probably warranted.