2023 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 19:46 (UTC), Sunday, 24 November 2024 (Purge)

Thank you for participating in the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

This page contains all questions asked of all candidates, in order to facilitate easy comparing between candidates.

ToBeFree

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.

Thank you for standing :) ArbCom makes a lot of tough decisions in user conduct cases, often with potential for community blowback. What's the toughest (or, one of the toughest) decisions you've made with the admin tools? Preferably a situation related to user-conduct, although anything'll do. Talk about the way you approached the situation, the weighed factors, how you came to a decision, any fallout that came as a result, and if you would have done anything differently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unilaterally taking controversial action with the tools wouldn't just be tough – it would often be a mistake too. For example, the criteria for speedy deletion are meant for uncontroversial cases; speedy deletion is not meant to be knowingly applied "with potential for community blowback". Same applies to actions taken in response to WP:AIV reports. Whenever there's a tough decision to be made, it should be the result of a consensus – which is why ArbCom is a committee and not a collection of people who individually authoritatively define the results of cases.
I tried to avoid making this mistake as far as I could, and I've been successful so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple points in my monthly contribution graph and my user page history where off-Wikipedia events made it complicated to continue as I had done before. In all these situations, I found a way to continue even without having agreed to do so in advance. While we are all volunteers and keeping this in mind is healthy, I have committed to responding to talk page messages and e-mails within 24 hours and remaining accountable even when sick or tired. This has worked for 4 years now; it should work for another two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an easy request to make, especially without access to the communication that happened behind the scenes. "More transparency" always sounds good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that, when dealing with cases and the few requests that end up in the clerks' queue, I'm looking at the tip of an iceberg. Most of the private work will be done via e-mail, and to a lesser extent IRC. I'm familiar with using (and administrating) both, and I am positive about my ability to deal with the yet-unseen rest of the iceberg in at very least an acceptable way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there, or are there any top-priority goals you would like to accomplish in the ArbCom? --ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Do I need to have an agenda? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a highly unusual decision based on the Committee's jurisdiction over all matters [previously] heard by it. That said, all arbitrators are community members, and the recent Lourdes case request was opened by an arbitrator. Beeblebrox's recusal as a filing party is the only practical difference to ArbCom initiating a case by itself. So while both types of case requests may seem strange at first, there isn't much I could argue against it unless we're interested in prohibiting arbitrators from requesting cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the question asked by Tamzin, q3, I am a little unsure of what your getting at in your answer. Could you please elaborate on this. Sure transperancy may be good, but there are also significant policies regarding privacy. As such it is not always possible to share information. What exactly is your view on transparency of what may be private data. When is it not ok to share information from within an investigating committee. Thanks for your application also. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 07:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my answer to question 3, I tried to say the following: Neither Tamzin nor me have access to the data we're talking about, so our arguments about "more" transparency can only rely on guesswork. And while I value transparency in general, I also trust the Arbitration Committee not to carelessly publish information it has privately received, and not to carelessly un-oversight information that has been reasonably oversighted. I wouldn't want to break this fundamental trust as an arbitrator either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 10:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't always this way; Doc James was restricted but not desysopped in 2020's Medicine case. This type of restrictions is rare because the only difference between admonishment and banning of a behavior is the threat of an immediate block. If that's really required to prevent an administrator from continuing to misbehave, they should probably not be an administrator. Or the other way around: If desysopping is unnecessary, such a restriction is usually also unnecessary, and a properly worded admonishment would be fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached in this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An analysis of the case requests, first:
- No administrative misconduct of the longstanding admin has been provided in this example, as the full protection may have been the justified end of an edit war between many highly experienced users, perhaps about the inclusion of a perceived WP:NOTFORUM violation. If there is a need for sanctions, WP:AN would be a place to request them.
- Where does the age information come from? As even the self-disclosure of the described information is regularly suppressed (cf. WP:RFO, search for "self-disclosure"), it would be very tough to imagine a situation where this case request wouldn't be removed and oversighted. No reasons for sanctions against the new administrator have been provided here either.
- Regarding the RfA votes, I'm neither a bureaucrat nor applying to become one; I should just note that the community hasn't imposed suffrage requirements beyond "having an account" at RfA yet, and ArbCom wouldn't be in a position to overturn it.
Now, about conduct issues: In your example, "for senility" and "too young" are personal attacks – the former is generally worse to me because it is less likely to be written in good faith. Personal attacks are contrary to the expected behavior on Wikimedia projects, and they're incompatible with the UCoC's prohibition on insults.
Civilly voicing concerns about the quality of English contributed to the English Wikipedia and its English talk pages is often justified but still subject to civility requirements, and "rows of squares" (▯▯▯▯▯?) indicate a font issue on the reader's computer.
Fortunately, our local policies (WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:HA) are usually sufficient to deal with violations of the UCoC. There may arguably be a few exceptions to this, such as:
- Hate speech that isn't "directed against another editor or a group of editors" (WP:PA) nor against article subjects (WP:BLP); or
- Disclosure of personal data in cases not covered by our outing prohibition.
The latter concern was a hot topic in the HJP case; the resulting finding may arguably have dismissed too lightly the possibility of enwiki's policies being a lower standard than the UCoC in a few edge cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that specific RfC, but looking at Talk:Stanley Holloway § Rfc re: i-box and Talk:Georges Feydeau/Archive 1 § Infobox, it becomes clear why the motion for removing "infobox probation" as a contentious topic restriction had to fail despite its lack of application. Without a community-wide, documented and clear consensus about the inclusion of infoboxes, there likely won't be peace in this area. Restrictions can attempt to reduce the noise caused by uncivil and repetitive voices, but they can't resolve the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently not concerned by the way the Arbitration Committee operates. There will always be attempts to prove, sometimes with reference to mysterious "Wikipedia insiders" and fancy diagrams, how unjust and wrong central aspects of Wikipedia are, or how biased and doomed the project as a whole is. If I seriously shared these concerns, I wouldn't spend most of my free time here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't attempt to provide a definite answer to a request for a "single worst" decision, but remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, which ended up being rescinded six months later, was clearly a learning experience. The RfC primarily mandated by that remedy (permanent links: page, header) is "not open yet" in capital letters; it has been over a year and the reference to "Nov 5" there has become ambiguous in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly already answered by my candidate statement and in response to similar questions above. In a nutshell, I'm fine with how the Arbitration Committee works and am not applying to push for reforms. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it would be naive to say that all contributions equally improve the encyclopedia (the most obvious counter-example being vandalism), it would also be inappropriate to trivialize contributions such as typography fixes. It would be especially inappropriate to answer the question by attempting to rank ("types of") people rather than edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary accounts, previously known as "IP masking", will be deployed to the first wikis in March 2024.^[1] This may improve our ability to message IPv6 users whose IP addresses change on every computer reboot, but it may also make the detection of and response to abuse harder especially for newcomers who lack access to the addresses. Temporary accounts are as close to "mandatory registration" as we have ever been, just with a random username and no password. I don't think requiring users to define a username and a password would noticeably prevent unhelpful contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The severity of this, of course, depends on the type of false information. An incorrect biography of a living person can damage the article subject's life; an incorrect biography of a fictional character can't. This is why fixing the former is exempt from the policy against edit warring while fixing the latter is not. Also, some of the "obvious vandalism" that happens in fancruft-prone articles isn't obvious to outsiders, so dealing with AIV reports about these can be tricky. However, of course I care, and the intended audience of these shows should never have to look at a vandalized Wikipedia page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like 2014's "superprotect" disaster. I wouldn't sanction editors for attempting to enforce a consensus, valid or invalid. I would, however, enforce the prohibition on wheel warring and likely support the removal of administrative and bureaucratic privileges that have been misused in this way. Edit warring shouldn't be something the Arbitration Committee has to deal with, but in this case of a serious conduct dispute the community has been unable to resolve, the necessity of sanctions has to be evaluated carefully. For example, edit warring that requires template editor or interface administrator privileges clearly demonstrates unsuitability for these permissions, and should lead to their removal even if the edit warring was done for a perceived good cause (it always is).
That all said, the Arbitration Committee is not in a position to authoritatively decide if the "consensus" that led to the disruptive behavior is valid, just as it isn't in a position to make authoritative decisions about article content. If the Wikimedia Foundation uses technical measures to override a community's wishes, these measures are not something the Arbitration Committee can decide to remove or keep either. It can attempt to limit the disruption caused by one side of the conflict by sanctioning editors for their conduct, but that's about it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To check whether I've understood you correctly; if Interface Admin A implements consensus, the WMF reverts the change, and then Interface Admin B re-implements consensus, you would support revoking B's admin privileges? BilledMammal (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This specific clarification example is far less severe than the larger image you had written about. Whether B's single revert already counts as wheel warring depends on whether "the WMF" is viewed as an "administrator". The global rights policy has different provisions for staff, system administrators and global interface editors, and the actual group membership of "the WMF" in this dispute may matter. At very least in the moment an elected local administrator reverts an elected local administrator's edit to a fully protected page, restoring it without further discussion becomes an unacceptable thing to do. In less clear cases, evaluating compliance with administrative conduct requirements may be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely happy with the opinion statements built into this question, starting with "at the pleasure of" and ending with "instead", as if – for example – representative democracy wasn't a form of democracy and as if ArbCom elections weren't also CU+OS elections. The community already manages access to these permissions, and the way this is currently done is the result of unsuccessful direct CU/OS elections and an RfC. There is a discussion at WT:ACN § Call for Checkusers and Oversighters (permanent link) explaining this situation, and I don't think the current lack of checkuser and oversighter appointments is caused by a committee arbitrarily rejecting qualified applications. I also don't think that contacting ArbCom privately with an application is a less inviting and more frightening process than directly having to submit an application on a public page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that AE in practice is more effective than ANI at addressing disruptive behavior in contentious topic areas? (excepting matters involving parties named in the original arbitration cases) Sennalen (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may depend on the behavior and the reported user, but in general, the requirements for dismissing an enforcement request at AE are relatively strict and increase the probability of action being taken in response to a report of actual policy or restriction violations. Even if the result is "just" a logged warning, that log entry would likely not have been the result of an ANI discussion. Also, the structure of AE requests is formalized while an ANI section is usually just one huge threaded discussion with varying quality of indentation. At AE, concise, unemotional and policy-based statements don't get buried within the repetitive bickering of a few loud participants. Thus, if there is disruptive behavior within the scope of AE and ANI and your aim is to maximize the chance of administrative intervention, reporting it at AE is probably the more effective choice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had expected a page full of (implicit) comparisons between concept and reality, but in its current form, most of this seems to be a general guide about behavior that wouldn't hurt outside of ArbCom cases, too. It's hard to disagree with this.
What I find most interesting is the section about the Workshop page. The HJP case had a separate analysis page instead; the Industrial agriculture case has an analysis section on the evidence page, created on request because of the lack of a Workshop. Perhaps, contrary to the (satirically exaggerated) description as a "mud pit", the Workshop does serve a useful purpose. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently finished a rewrite of Genghis Khan. What is the worst problem with the article at this revision, and why? Please reference relevant policies or guidelines. I am asking this question to candidates whose ability to evaluate/write content I am not immediately convinced by.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't attempt to answer this question. The Arbitration Committee resolves conduct disputes; it does not rule on content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this as Q21 for Maxim and will modify it here. First, what exactly is the purpose of an individual having multiple roles?
Second, please clarify workload and how this fits a status quo of about 30 ArbCom with 8 slots open to 10 candidates at present. Maxim's answer #10 suggests only a handful of cases ever since 2010. If the workload is that low, why so many candidates? OTOH, if the workload is high, why so few (these past several years) -- should there be an active reconsideration of the role (e.g, redefining its responsibilities more narrowly) that might lead to a larger number of candidates in future elections? Martindo (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assigning multiple roles to one person, not just on Wikipedia and not just in volunteer communities, can be a simple necessity due to a lack of individuals. On Wikipedia, we don't deny rollback group membership to users just because they already happen to be a pending changes reviewer; we're happy about people doing both for free.
This becomes more complicated when group membership is associated with power. Even if they had the time and abilities to do so, we wouldn't want members of a parliament to act as supreme court judges; the power of these two roles is intentionally separated. Separation of powers is probably most important when their actions depend on each other: Judges interpret the laws made by the members of the parliament. Bureaucrats implement desysops requested by the Arbitration Committee. Under the current procedures, if the enacting ArbCom clerk is a bureaucrat, they perform the desysop themselves; this could surely be criticized from a theoretical point of view without making a difference in practice. If permission misuse was the concern, a single bureaucrat on ArbCom would already be a problem; I don't think that's the case.
So the "purpose of an individual having multiple roles" is filling these roles. Many things on Wikipedia are the result of pragmatism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your second question above, regarding workload and the number of candidates: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 44+46+37+33+35+12+25+31+29+23+24+17+24+119 = 499 requests for cases since the end of 2010, resulting in 16+11+12+11+19+5+4+6+9+8+6+7+5 = 119 cases. As described in question 4, this is the tip of an iceberg.
The number of volunteers applying for a position may increase when it comes with less responsibilities and less work. However, the Arbitration Committee performs necessary tasks listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities, and delegating any of them to a new role requiring additional volunteers would worsen the problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly

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.

Thank you for standing :) ArbCom makes a lot of tough decisions in user conduct cases, often with potential for community blowback. What's the toughest (or, one of the toughest) decisions you've made with the admin tools? Preferably a situation related to user-conduct, although anything'll do. Talk about the way you approached the situation, the weighed factors, how you came to a decision, any fallout that came as a result, and if you would have done anything differently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These situations (taking tricky user-conduct decisions) come up reasonably frequently at SPI and in the wider work of a Checkuser. These cases involve making a determination as to whether a user is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, ranging from simple "playground nonsense" socking to mess about, through to complex long-term abuse involving organised disinformation operations aiming to sway our coverage of political matters. When weighing the evidence in such cases, the stakes are reasonably high - SPI blocks are given a reasonably high deference by convention, and Checkuser blocks are given an extremely high deference by policy. When blocking, I need to be as confident as I can be that I am making the right call, to a higher threshold than when making a block under a different policy (e.g. for vandalism). I need to ensure that if questioned on the reasoning (which may involve a fairly complex logic chain) I can explain it to a fellow admin or CU. The consequences of not blocking and being wrong, while lower, are still potentially significant - I could allow abusive accounts to continue to disrupt the project (although this is an easier case to remedy at a later date than blocking incorrectly).
In terms of how I make those decisions, it is all about the probative value of evidence - does the evidence we have pass my confidence threshold for "these accounts are related and being used abusively". We can almost never reach certainty, we can only look to become "sure enough". A similar logic can be applied to the types of user conduct cases that come before ArbCom. We need to ensure that the problem has reached the threshold for a case (i.e. the issue cannot be handled by the community); we then need to assess the evidence, and draw conclusions as to the least amount of action that will solve the problem and prevent (further) disruption to the project or harm to contributors. We are never going to be able to make everybody happy, in some cases nobody will be 100% pleased with the outcome - that is the unfortunate reality of dispute resolution - but we can ensure that we find the best outcome for the community as a whole. firefly ( t · c ) 13:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am keenly aware from chats with current arbs of the increased pressure that having a "below-capacity" committee places on those that are active. I told myself that I would only run at ACE if I believed I would have the time to commit to do the work over the term if elected - and to the best of my knowledge I believe I will have said time. As a more direct answer to your question, there have been multiple occasions where I have been less active than usual but have received a ping about something - perhaps an issue with a Toolforge tool I maintain or an administrative issue I've been involved with. I will always make time to give a timely reply and (if relevant) look into whatever it is. Sometimes doing the actual work takes longer, but I try to keep people informed so they're not left wondering. If others are in some way relying on me to do something I owe it to them, and the community, to try to get it done. firefly ( t · c ) 13:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In short - "yes". ArbCom is uniquely empowered to handle complex conduct issues involving private evidence, and I believe that this is (a) a reasonable situation (we will always need a body capable of handling such evidence) and (b) something that ArbCom generally handles well on the merits of the situations. However, I do think that the Committee could do more to clarify the results of such cases and empower the community to deal with the aspects that it is capable of handling.
Perhaps in cases where there is both a private evidence component and a public/on-wiki component, the Committee could handle only the private component, give a suitably redacted summary of its findings, and pass the remainder of the matter back to the community. Naturally, there will be cases where the Committee feels the community is not able or not best placed to resolve the full matter, but I believe it usually owes the community a chance.
I have opted not to comment on the specific case you mention as I obviously do not have access to all the evidence therein, and feel it would therefore be unwise for me to talk about specifics. firefly ( t · c ) 13:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the "private" portion of "large volume of private work", I am already familiar with the processes and rules around working with private matters through my work as a Checkuser. Private arbitration matters should of course only be discussed in appropriate fora such as the arbcom-en lists or IRC channels restricted to arbitrators.
In answer to the "large volume" portion, I feel well-placed to ensure that 'the work gets done'. My real-life work involves a fair amount of coordinating and aligning between different people, and this is something I'm happy to bring to ArbCom if elected (e.g. ensuring that things don't fall between the cracks, that messages get a timely reply, that motions do not languish indefinitely without a clear outcome). In my statement I express a desire to improve the Committee's workflow tooling in order to reduce the amount of administration - this could (hopefully!) streamline the private work of the Committee significantly. firefly ( t · c ) 19:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an "unwritten rule" that ArbCom doesn't open cases of it's own volition - it acts only on a 'referral' from the community. There is an exception however, which the case you mention falls under - essentially ArbCom reserves the right to revisit matters previously referred to it. That case was indeed exceptional - triggered by the publication of a journal article making serious allegations about bias and manipulation in a sensitive topic area, and revisited a large number of prior proceedings with overlapping scope.
I think the principle of not opening cases without a referral is a good one, but I also think that it is sensible for ArbCom to reserve a right to revisit cases should an potential deficiency be found later on. Such power should, in my opinion, only be used to handle true outliers such as this case. firefly ( t · c ) 20:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky needle to thread - being an administrator is a position of community trust, and therefore it is a reasonably commonly held opinion (as far as I can tell) that an admin who requires formal conduct restrictions has lost that essential community trust and therefore shouldn't be an admin at all. Not to say that ArbCom has never attempted 'admin probation' - the remedy in the GiantSnowman case was such a thing. Ultimately for such a resolution to prove effective it requires the admin in question to be willing to reflect on and modify their conduct, and for the incident in question to be insufficiently serious to warrant a straight desysop. Such cases appear to be rare from what I can see in the archives.
I think ultimately that 'admin probation' where specific actions or actions in a specific area are restricted is a useful remedy for ArbCom to have in their toolbox, and it is certainly something I could see myself proposing for discussion should a suitable case arise. firefly ( t · c ) 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached in this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that basing ArbCom findings or remedies on the UCoC is particularly helpful, in this hypothetical case or more generally. As far as I can tell, English Wikipedia policies either impose the same rules or in many cases impose more stringent rules than the UCoC, and therefore there is no need to refer to the UCoC when resolving matters.

As for the hypothetical case requests, I am assuming for the sake of argument that sensible prior dispute resolution has been attempted.
You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility - you don't specify why the protection was made, but let's assume that it was a bad idea for one reason or another. Unless said admin doubles down and refuses to accept that their action was unwise, or this is part of a pattern of tool abuse, I'm not seeing all that much actionable here beyond perhaps an informal reminder. I also note that the "senility" comment would appear to be a personal attack, and potentially sanctionable.

Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager - this does not seem at all to be anything approaching a case, although that statement would appear to be suppressible (as it implies the admin is under 13). The hypotheticals branch out quite far, but I foresee some sort of sanction for the claimants as they are either outing a minor or telling falsehoods in order to exert some sort of control.

Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. - this one could be interesting. Worth mentioning at the start that the "rows of squares" comment seems to be a violation of our civility policy. We now have several questions to answer about the underlying facts: Were these votes actually canvassed or otherwise improper? Could these votes have swung the outcome of the RfA? (e.g. 15 votes in a 220/2/2 RfA would be unlikely to have a practical impact) If the answers are "yes" and "yes", then we are somewhat off the edges of the map and we would need to figure out the most sensible resolution, almost certainly alongside the bureaucrats.
Given that this matter seems to be high-profile in this scenario (e.g. protests about actions on the English Wikipedia), I think it would be wise for ArbCom to keep WMF Trust & Safety informed of their actions. firefly ( t · c ) 20:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC seems to show that there can still be disagreement about whether infoboxes add value to an article, but (at least in that specific case) the disagreement seems milder than it has been in the past. It appears that we have reached "peace" (perhaps an uneasy one?), which means there doesn't seem to be anything requiring ArbCom attention here. (Addendum: For full clarity, I do not believe I would support any revocation of the CT authorisation for Infoboxes. While the situation is better than before, there are clearly still entrenched opinions on both sides, and I think the CT designation is one of the things that allows for the formerly boiling dispute to have reduced to below a simmer.) firefly ( t · c ) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have major concerns about the structure of ArbCom - I have some concerns about its operational efficiency as mentioned in my statement, but I realise that is not what you are getting at. ArbCom is not perfect, because humans are not perfect - we all have biases and blindspots because of our background, our professions, our experiences. However, with a sufficiently large and sufficiently diverse-in-thought group you can mitigate the impact of these individual biases - which is something I believe ArbCom does reasonably well.
I think the factors identified in the first paper you cite are far from unique to Wikipedia, and aren't something we could effectively eliminate. I also note that the paper doesn't seem to make any attempt to assess the actual merits of the disputes considered, nor do they appear to be aware that the respondents to their surveys could be exaggerating things either intentionally or unintentionally because of their own biases. I am a computer scientist, not a social scientist, so perhaps I am missing something, but I do not find the argument presented at all persuasive. firefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one is reasonably easy - Remedy 11 of Conduct in deletion-related editing initiated a structured RfC around mass nominations at AfD, later expanded via consensus to also cover mass creation of articles. Moderators were selected and it was determined that the RfC should be closed by a panel. The first RfC (mass creations) happened, but for various reasons the mass deletion RfC did not. Six months after the remedy was passed, it was revoked owing to momentum around the RfCs decaying away. I do not think that ArbCom-initiated RfCs are a bad idea per se - but I think there were various structural issues in this specific case that led to things not working well. To avoid waffling on I will leave it there, if you are interested in more specifics please do ask a follow-up question. firefly ( t · c ) 20:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another easy one! :) Workflow tooling and efficiency for arbitrators. I talk about this in my statement, but in short arbs seem to spend a lot of time managing emails and keeping track of what needs looking at and/or voting on. This sucks up time that could be usefully spent elsewhere, as arbitrators or editors. There are lots of ideas around how to improve this from many current arbs, candidates, and former committee members. I think - if elected - the best thing I can do is collate these ideas and try to distill out of them a workable solution. I do not want to pre-judge what that solution may be until I have seen all of the "product requirements", but I think it is critical that we keep the ball rolling on this - if we roll it hard enough we may just smash through the wall of inefficiency. firefly ( t · c ) 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing. Wikipedia has many different types of editor (for the purposes of this answer I am talking about constructive editors) - those who focus on writing new content, those who focus on taking existing content and improving it / putting it through quality review processes, those who write templates or modules, or run bots. The list of potential areas to work on is long, and pretty much every area could benefit from more resource. Most editors do one or more of the things I listed across their Wikipedia career.
I also want to emphasise a point I made in my statement - it is not the types of editors we should be concerned about, but the diminishing number of editor-hours seemingly available. A rising tide lifts all boats, and if we can encourage new editors to begin their time with us we will almost certainly gain editor-hours across all the various aspects of Wikipedia. firefly ( t · c ) 20:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would I support turning off unregistered editing today - probably not. Would I support it in the likely-near-future world where IP masking is a thing, making anti-abuse efforts meaningfully more difficult? Yes, absolutely. Should we do such a thing, we should of course ensure that our account registration process (already one of the easiest on the Internet) is fully accessible to those using assistive technology such as screen readers (I believe the CAPTCHA process we use currently is not accessible) to ensure the barriers to entry are as low as possible while limiting abuse. firefly ( t · c ) 20:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor or administrator - yes, I would look to revert the vandalism and (if appropriate) take relevant administrative action. If you are asking would I care as a member of the Arbitration Committee - no, routine vandalism on its own does not require ArbCom involvement. firefly ( t · c ) 20:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would largely depend on the specific circumstances. On principle I will say that wheel warring is never a good idea - it is exactly the sort of inflammatory escalation that leads situations away from resolution and towards dramatic chaos - such actions are likely to push the WMF away from engaging with the community. It is likely that in this hypothetical situation I would try to persuade the Committee to act as a mediator between the WMF and the community, as ArbCom has regular contact with various groups from the Foundation. On would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus - I would of course support the community's right to come to a consensus along the lines of "we disagree with WMF decision X", but a consensus along the lines of "...and we empower our administrators to wheel-war with the Office" is a different matter. firefly ( t · c ) 21:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to be convinced that doing so is a wise move. This is a "strong opinion, weakly held" - in that I have formed a conclusion but am very open to changing my mind on receipt of additional information. Functionary candidates are often administrators involved in user conduct matters, and therefore may do unfairly poorly in a straight vote process like RfA despite being an excellent candidate owing to the "popularity contest" aspects of such elections. We could limit the electorate to current functionaries, but that could lead to a self-selection effect and stymie the addition of those with fresh ideas and views. One solution could be a similar process as today (functionary vetting -> community consultation), but the issue then becomes one of how that is managed, and who judges success.
Assuming ArbCom would also relinquish their role of removing access, a process would be needed for this - probably involving the global Ombuds Commission. None of these are insurmountable, but I think I have yet to see a solid rationale for why we should do this - so perhaps that is my answer in a nutshell. There are indeed things I think ArbCom could and should relinquish to the community, but I wouldn't necessarily start here. firefly ( t · c ) 21:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does anything in WP:FRINGE override WP:IMPARTIAL? Sennalen (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me they appear to be saying the same thing in slightly different ways and with slightly different emphases. The NPOV policy (of which the section on impartiality is a part) is one of our core content policies, and in my opinion one of the central reasons for Wikipedia's success as a source of knowledge. The Fringe Theories guideline lays out how NPOV can be maintained in contexts where there are ideas strongly held by a minority but which do not have wider scientific consensus. (wikilawyer sidebar: as a guideline rather than a policy, FRINGE cannot really 'override' anything in NPOV by default, but I realise that is not the answer you are looking for)
FRINGE outlines what fringe theories are and how best to handle them with examples, giving clearer guidance to editors who encounter issues around them - it is a specific application of the wider NPOV 'theory', and I don't personally see any conflicts therein. firefly ( t · c ) 10:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the guide overall is solid, and if it were required reading before filing a case request or making your first submission as an uninvolved party at ARC I think things may go a little more smoothly. As some other candidates have observed, it is rather cynical, but I think that cynicism in this case may actually be helpful as it can disabuse people of inaccurate preconcieved notions.
In answer to your question, I would probably say "General 3" - ArbCom is indeed not a court nor should it be anything like it, but I think it does generally try to be reasonably fair and just in its remedies - for example giving some deference to precedent and trying to ensure that similar breaches of policy receive similar treatment (i.e. that remedies are not capricious or... heh... arbitrary). I would also hope that "PD 2" is a solvable problem - either there should be some taxonomy of these remedies, or the Committee should simply pick one and use it for "formal warning but no other action taken". firefly ( t · c ) 11:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the world are you based? BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I make no secret of living in the United Kingdom, and so am happy to answer this question accordingly. firefly ( t · c ) 11:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed, and that is why Wikipedia has various guidelines and projects on this topic that aim to ensure that articles reflect a worldwide view of a topic. These efforts are hampered somewhat by the fact that the majority of English Wikipedia editors are from Anglophone and/or OECD countries, which will unfortunately lead to bias in output whether consciously or unconsciously. I do think we need to be careful when countering this to ensure that our other core policies around verifiability and reliable sourcing are upheld, but that is probably a discussion for another forum. firefly ( t · c ) 11:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh

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.

Thank you for standing :) ArbCom makes a lot of tough decisions in user conduct cases, often with potential for community blowback. What's the toughest (or, one of the toughest) decisions you've made with the admin tools? Preferably a situation related to user-conduct, although anything'll do. Talk about the way you approached the situation, the weighed factors, how you came to a decision, any fallout that came as a result, and if you would have done anything differently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've made any administrative actions that came with any real fallout or were tough calls to make, but I think the toughest administrative decision I made was when I decided it was best to not use administrative tools in a situation, as I did here. Given that the editor came to me specifically to try to get another editor blocked, it felt inappropriate to be the one to act in that situation, given that up to that point I had been the only administrator to have blocked either of them, and I had blocked the editor in question twice already at that point. With that in mind I felt it was best to let a different administrator review the relevant ANI and ANEW reports to avoid even the appearance of any sort of bias or impropriety, but I say that's the toughest because I sat on that for a while trying to decide what the best course of action was. - Aoidh (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did commit in June 2020 to working on reducing Category:Unassessed Buddhism articles, which at the time had a bit over 2,500 articles. By July 2022 I had gotten it down to 1,500 and decided to empty it completely, and got it to 0 by November 2022. The primary difficulty in that task was the repetitiveness of assessing that many articles, but I had committed to clearing it out and made sure it got done. - Aoidh (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as that case in particular, it looks like private information was sent to ArbCom on or about August 26, and on September 10 the two editors were told they needed to disclose their shared IP publicly, both Mark Ironie and CV doing so the next day, which was the day before the ArbCom case was opened. With that timeframe in mind that may explain why nothing was said, as the investigation may have still been ongoing. As a more general answer, it very much depends on the nature of the private information, the situation being discussed, and so on. In my experience in dealing with private information in a professional setting, there are unfortunately times where even openly acknowledging the mere existence of private information is enough to indicate what that information is. ArbCom needing to be transparent and accountable while also needing to keep private information private is an unfortunate dichotomy, but I would say that ArbCom should be as transparent as privacy considerations permit. - Aoidh (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have experience with handling large caseloads containing private information by way of handling insurance claims; it's easy to look at a massive caseload and get overwhelmed which can lead to little to nothing getting done, but what I've found when dealing with large caseloads is it's best to partition them into groups of around five, that way I can focus on getting five done, and then five more if I can, and so on. When I'm focusing on getting five done it allows me to focus on what needs to be done in that moment rather than worrying about what needs to be done in the aggregate, and helps ensure I don't rush through them just to clear them out; that way I can give each item the appropriate amount of attention it needs while also getting the job done. - Aoidh (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to an article in The Jerusalem Post, ArbCom initiating the full case is not something that has happened before. A Feb 2023 signpost article goes into detail about the catalyst for the case and the atypical way that case was opened. The rationale given was that ArbCom was invoking its jurisdiction over all matters previously heard and exercising its authority to revisit any proceeding at any time at its sole discretion referring to prior cases such as WP:APL. This talk page discussion about the scope does support that rationale, though there is certainly a difference between amending a previous case and opening a new full case. I think a full case was warranted in that situation, and given commentary at places like AN the matter seemed headed for ArbCom one way or another, but should ArbCom have been the ones to initiate it? Since it was revisiting a topic that already had ArbCom cases I don't think it was wrong to do so, but I do think it shouldn't set a precedent or become a matter of course, and I don't think ArbCom should self-initiate any cases that aren't within its "all matters previously heard" scope. - Aoidh (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 10:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it very much depends on the circumstances of the individual case. WP:TOOLMISUSE says Serious misuse may result in sanctions or even their removal (emphasis mine). With that in mind I think it's reasonable to consider alternative actions other than just going straight to a desysop. As for examples, I don't want to focus on a specific editor, but there are a few administrators listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee that prohibit certain administrative actions without removing the tools entirely, so there is precedent for considering sanctions that do not go straight to a desysop. - Aoidh (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached in this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The UCoC is a baseline, bare minimum for all Wikimedia projects, and while things like its Harassment section does cover intelligence, disability, and age (making the comments about the two admins potentially harassment) Wikipedia:Harassment is more thorough and goes beyond the UCoC. Generally speaking, I think the English Wikipedia's own policies should be the standard, as they go beyond the UCoC's minimum requirements in every instance I could find. However, the UCoC states that "designated functionaries" may impose sanctions related to the UCoC, so while it is something to keep in mind generally speaking if someone is harassing someone then they can be blocked per enwiki policy without necessarily having to go to a functionary for that issue. As far as ArbCom actions, the first thing that should be done is to make sure that any revdel/suppressible material is handled appropriately, because the safety of all involved is paramount. Regarding the RfA, given the short timespan that an RfA is open it would depend on the specifics as to what should be done, and if the UCoC or any of the enwiki policies are relevant. So long as there is nothing that requires immediate action from ArbCom, ArbCom would ideally let the community and the bureaucrats handle the RfA, unless they they determine they are unable to or ask for ArbCom's intervention during or after the conclusion of the RfA. For the rest of the issues, that sounds like something that may require a full case or action from ArbCom, which would be determined as usual. - Aoidh (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When contentious topics restrictions are put in place, it provides a mechanism in which disruptive behavior can be more rapidly dealt with, but it is not by itself a solution to longstanding disputes that are intractable enough to require a CT designation. It provides that framework, but disputes within the topic area will still happen, and RfCs are still a good way to resolve disputes that get to point of needing that level of resolution. What that RfC specifically tells me is that the subject of infoboxes is in no way a settled debate on Wikipedia, and my advice for peace in those discussions would be the same as any other dispute, things like WP:AVOIDYOU which helps avoid even the appearance of discussing contributors instead of content, being respectful even if you disagree, and using dispute resolution options like RfC when it's clear that one is needed to settle a dispute. I know these aren't novel ideas by any means, but they are a good standard to set to help keep a discussion on track. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the Law and Social Inquiry article, but I had not read Konieczny's 2017 paper before so I had to take the time to read it. The "Biases in collegiate courts" section on pages 5–6 provides interesting examples of various types of biases that are relevant to ArbCom and are (for myself) worth keeping in mind. To your first question, biases exist in so many forms that if someone claims they are unbiased, then they are simply unaware of their own biases. While it is not possible for a person to be truly unbiased, everyone (ArbCom and otherwise) should strive to be as unbiased as possible, which is why diversity in ArbCom and the community at large is so important. To the point of off-wiki canvassing, that is always a concern because if done right there's no indication that it's happening and things like consensus are swayed in an inorganic and inappropriate way. As for the "tenure" issue, I would like to think it doesn't happen as often as complaints about it suggest, but it does happen to varying degrees. The 2023 Grisel paper suggests that a possible explanation is that editors with more experience are less likely to act disruptively, and I think there's some truth to that, but tenure does not excuse behavior; those with significant experience should be more aware of what is inappropriate on Wikipedia, so I think all of those factors are something that ArbCom should keep in mind when evaluating cases. To your followup question, I think mindfullness and transparency (so far as privacy-related issues allow) is the best way to address such concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your statement you give an example of a third opinion as an example of why you're ready to serve on ArbCom and in response to Question 1 suggest you haven't made any hard decisions. Can you explain how a non-binding opinion about content - which is outside of ArbCom's remit - has prepared you for ArbCom while not having made any difficult administrative decisions? Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very fair question. I have made types of administrative decisions that sometimes get pushback, like removing permissions from editors, implementing topic bans and CBANS, but if an action is going to be controversial, I try to "look before I leap" and fully examine and discuss it beforehand as needed and figure out why it would be controversial. I recognize that not every dispute can be resolved in a way that is without controversy, but the goal is that when it is time to actually use the tools, there's no difficulty in making that decision and minimized chance of controversy. I think that mindset is a good fit for ArbCom, since the idea is to resolve disputes in a way that is methodical and reasoned and does not further inflame things, but to also act decisively when it is time to make that decision. A lot of times the difference between a controversial administrative action and a non-controversial one is the way in which is it done and the way that it is explained. It's not that I don't come across situations that are at first appearance a hard call or that I am afraid to act, but taking the time to examine the situation typically removes any difficulty with how to address it. - Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping in mind that I am not privy to the private information that was involved, I think the Stephen case findings of fact, specifically the difference between Initial contact with Stephen and desysop and Stephen's explanations sufficient could have been elaborated on a bit more for clarity. I understand it was involving private information which limits what can be shared publicly, and to the "explanations being sufficient" point I understand that sometimes an elaboration provides an appropriate explanation that an initial response may not. However, when taking the discussions at the Proposed decisions page into account, while I'm not saying I disagree with the result (as again, I am not privy to the private information that formed the basis of that result) the wording of the "Stephen's explanations sufficient" finding of fact feels like it could have used some elaboration, especially given the slim margin by which it passed and subsequent comments at the closure discussion. I do want to acknowledge though that it's far easier for me to sit on the sidelines and suggest that something be worded differently, especially well after the fact, and quite another to have to balance transparency and privacy effectively in the moment. - Aoidh (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest issue ArbCom has had is burnout. Even if subtle in some ways and more obvious in others, it creates a butterfly effect in how ArbCom functions, and how I would handle that is to not only make sure that I'm pulling my own weight in what needs to be done, but also to make sure that I personally minimize the risk of burnout for myself. Through my career I have been given opportunities to engage with various types of methods for avoiding burnout, and so I have experience with what works for me and what doesn't, because there's not a one-size-fits-all solution for things like that. - Aoidh (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most important type of editor is one who, in good faith, wants to improve Wikipedia. You can learn guidelines and policies and how to format citations and so on, but that desire to want to leave something better than you found it is a trait worth having. - Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly understand the appeal of requiring an account and understand why it's a popular subject of discussion, to the point that it is a perennial proposal, but I think such a restriction (minimal though it is) goes against the "anyone can edit" ethos and would not be beneficial to the English Wikipedia in the long term. This experiment with such an implementation I think is worth reading for an example of how making that requirement may not have the intended results. - Aoidh (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Subtle vandalism like that is often the most damaging, as it's often harder to catch. While not all incorrect information added to an article is vandalism, it sometimes is, and should first and foremost be corrected once the change has been recognized as being incorrect, and then handled as appropriately depending on the nature of the edit(s). - Aoidh (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My first edit to Meta was regarding the Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer and WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM also comes to mind as two examples that run along this vein. First and foremost, wheel warring is prima facie disruptive and inappropriate, and a warning or sanctions may be appropriate. As for the English Wikipedia's right to come to a certain consensus that overrides the WMF, it very much depends on the specifics of what that consensus is. There are some things that have legal considerations that protect not only the WMF but Wikipedia editors, and some things that seem like they are a decision made by the WMF are actually adherence to a legal requirement.With that in mind the answer to whether I would support that consensus very much depends on the specifics of what the consensus is regarding. - Aoidh (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the Spanish Wikipedia checkuser policy is that it is done via an RfA-style process specifically because there is no Spanish Arbitration Committee, but I don't think adding another RfA-style process to the English Wikipedia would be ideal. I could see a situation where those permissions were handled by WP:PERM, but even then it would have to be somewhat unique in its implementation given that they require adherence to the Access to nonpublic personal data policy. With the PERM route I also don't think it should be a unilateral decision by a single administrator, but as a very rough draft idea I could see something like having a certain number of bureaucrats or functionaries signing off on the request instead of going through ArbCom. So the conditions I would ideally like to see is avoiding a full-blown RfA-style process but also making sure such a candidate is properly vetted by more than one individual. - Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At what point does WP:STONEWALLING escalate beyond just a content dispute into disruptive behavior that is appropriate for ANI or AE to act on? Sennalen (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many different ways a person can stonewall a discussion or dispute so there isn't a one-size-fits-all response or a definitive line to cross. It is appropriate to take it to a noticeboard like ANI when an editor in good faith uses their best judgement and determines that it has reached a level of disruption that requires it being addressed through an appropriate noticeboard. It depends on the specifics of the situation as to what action, if any, is needed. Sometimes the comment can simply be left alone if it's a single comment, sometimes it is appropriate to take the matter to WP:ANEW if they are consistently reverting without discussion, sometimes dispute resolution like WP:3O may help, and sometimes it requires opening a discussion at WP:ANI; WP:DDE encompasses disruptive editing as a whole rather than just stonewalling, but it does provide good examples of when certain actions might be appropriate for a given situation. - Aoidh (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one that I would at least partially disagree with is the first point under User:Guerillero/Guide to Arbitration#Evidence that says Parties receive only 1000 words and 100 diffs; everyone else gets 500 words and 50 diffs which is true, but does omit that extensions can be requested and granted for additional words as needed (though it is by no means a guarantee). I absolutely agree with the point that's being made, but while the possibility of an additional allotment is an exception, it does happen; additional allotments were granted in 3 of the 5 cases in 2023 (Smallcat, AlisonW, and World War II and the history of Jews in Poland) and I saw no such requests that were denied this year. - Aoidh (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently finished a rewrite of Genghis Khan. What is the worst problem with the article at this revision, and why? Please reference relevant policies or guidelines. I am asking this question to candidates whose ability to evaluate/write content I am not immediately convinced by.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Content evaluation of that nature is outside of the scope of ArbCom and would likely require something similarly situated to a GAN-level analysis to properly answer that question. However, since it was asked to determine the ability to evaluate and write content and the article was just listed as a GAN I will say that I have reviewed two GANs (Talk:WUPA/GA1 and Talk:K-Meleon/GA1) and written or improved six articles to GA status, so I do have some experience on both sides of that process. - Aoidh (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the world are you based? BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the US State of Georgia in the Eastern Time Zone, which is at this time of year UTC−05:00. - Aoidh (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English is indeed the language with the most speakers globally. I did comment on the nature of bias in my answer to Question 9, but people have a natural tendency to apply the standards they are familiar with to information they encounter, and that does lead to unintentional bias by both editors and sources. The best tool against that type of bias is diversity in sources and editors, but it will always be something to be mindful of when editing. - Aoidh (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

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.

Thank you for standing :) ArbCom makes a lot of tough decisions in user conduct cases, often with potential for community blowback. What's the toughest (or, one of the toughest) decisions you've made with the admin tools? Preferably a situation related to user-conduct, although anything'll do. Talk about the way you approached the situation, the weighed factors, how you came to a decision, any fallout that came as a result, and if you would have done anything differently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question @Theleekycauldron: I think my work at AE has produced tough decisions, so I will expand upon that below. I will talk in generalities because other editors cannot respond to what I say, but while writing this response I did have specific cases in mind and I invite editors to look at my AE work. If I am selected as an arbitrator, I will publicly post my reasoning with my votes whenever appropriate.

When evaluating an AE case, I first ensure that immediate action is not necessary (like plagiarism or outing). If it is not, I give editors a couple of days to post their submissions to get a more complete picture before making determinations. When evaluating evidence, I read the submitted diffs and discussion threads that surround the diffs; this allows me to understand the diffs' context and consider the behaviour from a more neutral perspective. I will then read the analysis from the submissions to see how the diffs were interpreted by the people involved. I also develop timelines while looking at evidence to help understand the dispute.

When writing recommendations, my first thought is "How will my suggestion stop or prevent the largest amount of disruption for as many editors as possible?" Having a case continue to return to AE takes up admin time and frustrates editors involved, but being heavy-handed on sanctions can enflame the situation, causing editors to lash out or leave Wikipedia. Some recommendations I give are interaction bans for editors who struggle with discussing issues with each other; topic bans, broadly construed, for editors who cannot neutrally edit about a topic; and a block for editors causing continuous disruption on a large variety of articles. I post my reasoning with my recommendations so editors and admin can evaluate my decision and reference it when responding. If selected for ArbCom, I will continue evaluating cases from the perspective of reducing disruption and posting my reasoning publicly when appropriate.

In terms of fallout, admin have disagreed with my recommendations at AE; I read all of their responses and tried to come to a consensus with them. Editors have also reacted in various ways to my recommendations; in my responses, I focus on the content of the evidence presented and give my reasoning in detail. Patience is helpful in stressful situations, and I will bring that patience as I discuss my reasoning with others. If selected for ArbCom, I will continue to read the community's response to all posts and incorporate feedback into my perspective. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question @Barkeep49: Since February 2021, I have been involved with the featured article review process. This can be difficult work if editors become frustrated when "their" article is nominated for review. When nominating an article I continuously return to evaluate the article's progress against the FA criteria and follow up with recommendations. I also evaluate all articles placed at FAR once a week and join longer discussions if necessary to help the discussion continue. I have seen the slowdown that happens at FAR when editors do not respond so I try to be as active as possible.

Before submitting my candidacy for ArbCom, I asked multiple arbitrators (including Barkeep49) about the time commitment of an arbitrator. I believe I have the time to commit to the committee, and I will recuse on decisions if real-life commitments cause me to have an extended absence. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question @Tamzin: ArbCom should be as transparent as possible. However, there are specific circumstances where posting information on Wikipedia will bring more harm and disruption to the encyclopedia. I cannot judge a specific case because I don't know what was discussed in private deliberations. However, if selected as an arbitrator I will advocate for transparency unless there are outing concerns, personal harm, legal reasons why this information cannot be public, or other serious considerations. If necessary, I will encourage the committee to announce at WP:A/N when the committee is evaluating a user's conduct, give specifics if appropriate, and ask editors to submit evidence in the appropriate channels. Essentially, ArbCom has to evaluate this case-by-case, but I advocate for as much transparency as possible. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the question @CaptainEek: Private work needs to be private unless and until authorization is given to release the information publically, as determined by ArbCom, WMF or other authorized organisations. I will never reveal any private information to anyone unless there is expressed permission that I can cite to other members of the committee. This includes anyone on Wiki, real-life friends and family, and correspondence online. Before sending on-wiki emails, I will check to ensure that the information I say is already public information that I am authorized to talk about. When in doubt I will not say the information. I have already set up a separate email account for Wikipedia only, so any email correspondence will be separated from my personal and work emails. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question @Tryptofish: I am not too concerned about how this case was filed. One of ArbCom's roles is to adjudicate issues that are complex. In this situation, there was an accusation of widespread disruption involving multiple editors in a topic area already designated as a contentious topic in the Eastern Europe ArbCom case. The peer-reviewed source highlighted multiple articles and editors, and the eventual case expanded to include many more people. In my estimation, if the community attempted to detangle this issue, it would take many weeks of editor time and might not come to any consensus on how to move forward, and probably coming to ArbCom anyways after multiple hours of editor time is already spent. Furthermore, Barkeep49 noted in their statement that there was a previously declined case in this topic area, thus showing continuous disruption in this topic area.

I am not pleased that the accusations were published in an academic journal first; I would have preferred that the author raised their concerns on a noticeboard before publishing. Nevertheless, the behaviour outlined in the peer-reviewed article is the type of widespread disruption that I would expect ArbCom to adjudicate. In this situation, I care more about the outcome and how findings can fix the issues raised. A filing initiated by the committee should be rare, exceptional, and outline widespread disruption amongst multiple editors. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 10:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the questions @WereSpielChequers: ArbCom sanctions should be given to end disruption on Wikipedia. The range between admonishment and desysop is extreme and in-between sanctions need to be considered by the committee.

The fear of desysop prevents great admin from commenting in contentious areas. This leads to fewer admin maintaining Wikipedia policies in these topics, leading to burnout, or these topics spiralling out of control until a case is brought to ArbCom. I think the committee needs to signal that admin should be careful when acting in these topics, but also that an admin's good faith attempts to help will not lead to a desysop. Perhaps a topic ban for the admin would end the disruption just as well as a desysop so the admin can move to editing Wikipedia in other ways. In a different situation, if an admin is having negative interactions with an editor, but not using their admin powers in the conflict, then an interaction ban could be all that is necessary to end the disruption.

Desysop should be used when there is a consistent abuse of admin power, either with the use of the tools or the influence that admin have by obtaining this position. This needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and I hope I gain the trust of the community as an arbitrator to make these distinctions. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached in this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your second question @WereSpielChequers: My first concern is the potential outing of an admin's age. This goes against English Wikipedia's policy of posting personal information about an editor and disclosure of personal information under 3.1 of the UCoC. In this situation, I would immediately oversight the information about the age, speak to a staff member at WMF about more potential outings and the user's safety, and probably block the editor who posted the information (unless there were extenuating circumstances not mentioned in the above scenario).

For the case of desysoping the admin for fully protecting the article: if this was the only concern about the admin, I would decline this aspect of the case and ask the filers to open a review at WP:XRV. The editor's desysop on another wiki probably has no bearing in this case as different language wikis operate separately from each other. This incident might go against "Assuming good faith" in 2.1 of the UCoC, but based on the information above this is probably something that can be handled on English Wikipedia.

The behaviour at RfA is primarily a concern for the bureaucrats, whom the community has entrusted to run and grant admin powers to. In this situation, if the case has been brought forward by bureaucrats because the situation is untenable, then I would be more likely to accept the case. If the bureaucrats are taking steps to manage the situation, then I would leave the autonomy with them and monitor the situation. Some potential UCoC that might be breached are various aspects of 2.2 and 3.1, and the content of the comments and behaviour will determine if escalation to WMF will be required.

For the editors that struggle with English communication, this would be a WP:CIR concern. In this situation, I would encourage English admin to warn these editors about their conduct and how proficiency is required on the English Wikipedia. If disruption continues, these editors should be blocked for CIR and empower the admin team to do so. I would also seek an admin or steward who speaks the Elbonian language to facilitate communication. There might be UCoC issues with 3.1 (Hounding) but I think this can be handled by English Wikipedia’s internal mechanisms. I would probably inform the WMF about the situation so they can determine what should happen with the Elbonian language wiki.

For the dispute on the Elbonian civil war's article talk page: I would need to assess how the dispute has continued in the article and talk page. The information from the news article and the protests might be helpful, but I am more interested in the conduct of editors on wiki. Before making a decision, I would read as much of the talk page and article contributions as I can before deciding if a case is warranted. This is where my experience as a content writer will be useful, as I can evaluate edits to determine if POV, bad sources, inappropriate close paraphrasing or misrepresentation of the sources are being added to the article or perpetrated on the talk page. I would accept a case if the remedies in the above paragraphs have been used but disruption continues. ArbCom would need to be careful in jumping in too quickly, as ArbCom is a deliberately slow process and ongoing disruption cannot continue while a case is being heard. As with all scenarios, it is hard to make definitive statements as the context of the situation, as determined from hours of reading, will need to be considered before a decision is made. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question @Gerda Arendt: I think the RfC was the correct way to maintain peace in this topic area. Peace does not mean that there is no discussion, or that others cannot challenge the status quo. Rather, peace means that edit wars and reversions are at a minimum, editors avoid walls of text on the talk pages, and dispute resolution processes like RfC or third opinions are used occasionally. In this particular circumstance, ArbCom maintains the peace in the Mozart article by staying out of the way, letting the conversation continue, and monitoring the situation. If concerns continuously arise at WP:AE, WP:ANI, or elsewhere, ArbCom can consider accepting a case or amendments to previous infobox arbitration cases. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question @MicrobiologyMarcus: External factors are going to influence arbitrators, including each arbitrator's upbringing, culture, heritage, linguistic capabilities and country of origin. This is why it is important to have arbitrators with a variety of experiences and for others to make arbitrators aware of our decision-making trends. There are many external factors that should not influence arbitrators, including personal communications; I will never discuss a case with an editor privately and will recuse when I have become involved with a situation.

I am concerned with the canvassing described in the 2023 source: when editors canvass, they are not writing better articles for Wikipedia. Disputes about an article's content should take place on the article's talk page and tactically coordinating comments does not make an article better. Behaviour that does not produce better articles should not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

A user's edit count can bias ArbCom's decisions because experienced editors are more likely to know how to navigate Wikipedia's bureaucracy and use Wikipedia's lingo successfully. As an arbitrator, I will be aware of the navigational constraints of new editors, but I will not lower the expectations established in policies and guidelines. In other words, I will give grace to editors who need help understanding Wikipedia's rules, and use decisions to guide editors towards resolving disputes. I will maintain the expectation that editors strive towards positive contributions, they will actively seek to become better editors, and they should abide by rules when they have been explained. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Red-tailed hawk: This is a difficult question to answer because some FoFs and remedies are based on private evidence that I am not privy to. Instead, my answer to this question will highlight a remedy that ArbCom did not do involving WP:AE.

The WP:HJP case FoF 8.3 mentioned Buidhe’s AE against Volunteer Malak concerning sourcing, and how the closing administrator focused on Buildhe’s lack of communication with Volunteer Malak instead of the sourcing concerns. However, the committee gave no guidance in their remedies on how AE should change to prevent this issue from happening again.

AE is a creature of ArbCom and exists to enforce ArbCom’s remedies. However, little guidance has been given on what to do if there is no consensus on AE. ArbCom should have passed a remedy that if admin struggles to come to a consensus at AE about any issue, a case should be requested at ArbCom and filed by the AE’s closing admin. If this was done, the HJP issues might have been curtailed two years earlier. Making this a more definitive requirement would prevent the admin ambiguity of what to do. It would prevent issues like this from fizzling out in AE, only to continue causing problems on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your second question @Red-tailed hawk: The single most important thing that ArbCom needs to improve upon is reducing the vast amount of workload they undertake. The community has witnessed arbitrator burnout, stories about the vast number of emails they receive and issues surrounding getting arbs to vote on motions. We even have Barkeep49 in question 2 mention how quorum has been difficult to achieve. When I spoke with arbitrators about running in this election, each of them said that it was about 20 hours of work a week. This means that sitting arbitrators do not have the time to help out in other areas of Wikipedia, removing some of our most experienced editors from article writing, managing disputes at ANI, completing checkuser requests or many other processes here. I commit to working 20 hours a week at ArbCom, but I would like to find ways to reduce this time commitment.

If selected as an arbitrator, I will look at how arbitrator business is conducted and see where processes can be devolved to the admincore or the community. I am particularly interested in unblock requests brought to ArbCom, as I think some requests can be delegated to the admincore (unless there is a private evidence concern). Also, arbitrators already divide up tasks amongst themselves (for example, having two or three drafting arbitrators instead of all fifteen). What else can be more effectively divided up? As an arbitrator, I will explore this and propose solutions to arbitrators and the wider community. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the questions @Ltbdl: The most important type of editor is one who edits Wikipedia without disruption. This includes editors who write articles, review submissions at AfC, DYK, GAN or FAC, comment in RfCs about improving the article and those completing administrative or clerk tasks. Editing without disruption means other users do not have to spend time evaluating and fixing the work. Time is the only resource that we cannot get back, and any volunteer who spends their time making the site better is the most important type of editor. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support an outright ban on IP editing, but I think Wikipedia can do things to incentivize registration. Some things for the community to consider are automatically page-protecting high-traffic articles so that IP editors have to register to edit them, distilling the virtues of getting an account as a banner every time an IP submits an edit, limiting the number of edits an IP can make before they need to register, and getting information on why IP editors choose not to register so we can fix the concerns. I think incentives work better in building a community than banning IPs from editing everything. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question @Scoophole2021: I care if any article has unverified information (which is different from, and a higher standard than avoiding the addition of false information). Wikipedia strives to reflect what high-quality sources have said about a topic. If uncited information is added to an article, it should be removed. If someone adds information that is not verified by the inline citation, it should be removed. This will prevent false information from being posted on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question @BilledMammal: If we reach this level of acrimony, something has gone seriously wrong with Wikipedia processes. Before getting to this point, I would hope that this IAR consensus would have generated a large amount of discussion with a complicated close. If an editor did not open a case at ArbCom about this issue, I would file one myself under ArbCom’s purview to revisit past cases, which in this situation would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions: the scope would be if this IAR can stand, and the relationship of WMF, ArbCom and the community in this particular circumstance.

However, this question is about a situation where the above is no longer possible. This hypothetical does not include the evidence that a full ArbCom case would produce, nor the specific issue that got IAR'ed, so it is hard for me to make definitive statements. I also don't subscribe to the two options presented above, as there are many other solutions that can be considered.

For the wheel warring: this is a misuse of admin tools per WP:TOOLMISUSE. Anyone who engages in this will need to be sanctioned by ArbCom; this is complicated if WMF became involved with the wheelwarring. After Framgate, I have been informed that there is more communication between WMF and ArbCom. I would ensure that this issue is discussed with WMF as soon as possible so that this wheelwarring involving WMF does not happen. If necessary, I would propose emergency motions for ArbCom to take responsibility of the WMF admin actions as temporary measures so that the committee can determine what the best course of action would be in the short term to evaluate the situation. This will not be an endorsement of the WMF, but rather a way to hopefully stop the wheel warring and edit warring.

In the long term, ArbCom will need to evaluate the situation that led to the IAR and determine if IAR can be used in this situation. IAR says that an editor can ignore Wikipedia's rules, but in most circumstances editors cannot ignore laws that will cause litigation or lawsuits. If a solution can be found where the IAR situation can be kept, or a compromise to allow it is available, then I will propose that solution. However, if the law that is being ignored will cause too much disruption to the project, the IAR situation will not be allowed to continue. Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question @Xaosflux: I don't think the two options are ArbCom and the community; there are other ways for determining how these roles are given (like admin determining advanced permissions, or Bureaucrats who promote adminship). I am in favour of developing a new process for appointing Checkusers and Oversighters, where trusted members of the community can vet and determine who gets the tools. Moving this process away from ArbCom would also give more time for arbitrators to do other things. This process will need to be created with lots of community and WMF consultation to ensure the process has the trust of both groups.

However, I think a bigger problem is the lack of candidates for these positions. ArbCom had one successful candidate in the last process with a formal call, and moved to an open call. The Wikipedia community needs to foster more candidates and figure out ways to encourage editors to take up these roles. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that AE in practice is more effective than ANI at addressing disruptive behavior in contentious topic areas? (excepting matters involving parties named in the original arbitration cases) Sennalen (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question @Sennalen: Usually yes. ANI’s strength is evaluating one editor’s conduct, and one topic of their conduct (for example, one editor’s battleground behaviour in a specific article). The more complicated the case gets, the more time-consuming the evaluation of their conduct becomes, causing editors to avoid the thread or only focus on one aspect of the accusations. AE’s strength is creating an organised discussion within these contentious topics, which often involve multifaceted editor conduct concerns and the necessary consideration of the restrictions within that topic. AE is also able to obtain admin consensus more easily than ANI can obtain editor consensus since there is a smaller pool of editors that will be part of the final decision of what to do. Whether that is a good thing is a topic for another question, but the ability to more easily organise complex topics allows AE to take a thorough look at more aspects of an editor's conduct. While neither system is perfect, they both have a place in evaluating editor conduct on English Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your question @Guerillero: I think this guide to arbitration is great and I do not disagree with its information. What is missing is how (and when) to file a case, navigating requisitions for clarifications and amendments, and what happens when a case is closed. Another bullet point I might add for the "Workshop" section is "Remedies that affect you are more likely to be looked at favourably by arbitrators, especially if they fix a problem. For example, proposing a two-way interaction ban with another user, acknowledging that this will help you avoid negative behaviour, will be looked upon more favourably than proposing that another person is banned and refusing to acknowledge that you did anything wrong." Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question @BirgittaMTh: Excellent research is conducted in several languages and Wikipedia cannot rely upon English sources alone. However, this is the English Wikipedia so English sources should probably be included if that source also verifies the information and it passes the requirements in WP:RS. In WP:HJP, FoF 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 highlighted the difficulty in evaluating non-English sources, so ArbCom imposed a remedy of a "reliable sourcing restriction" for that topic area, and I agree with this restriction and would consider using this remedy again in similar cases.

I agree that Wikipedia should use sources from many different places, not just the United States. It is important that Wikipedia relies upon the highest-quality sources for information, which can be from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, it would be POV to only include research from one country if other research of equal quality is available. It would be disruptive if an editor removed sources that were not American because of this bias, and it would also be disruptive if an editor removed high-quality American sources for lesser-quality sources. Also, for international events and articles like measles, the text should have information about many different countries to give a global perspective. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim

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.

Thank you for standing :) ArbCom makes a lot of tough decisions in user conduct cases, often with potential for community blowback. What's the toughest (or, one of the toughest) decisions you've made with the admin tools? Preferably a situation related to user-conduct, although anything'll do. Talk about the way you approached the situation, the weighed factors, how you came to a decision, any fallout that came as a result, and if you would have done anything differently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi theleekycauldron, I can't help but note that you undid your posting of this same question to Cabayi on the grounds that he's an incumbent, which leads to answer your question with a question of my own: are you specifically looking for something I would have done with admin-only tools? I've served recently for three years as an arbitrator and I've been a bureaucrat for 12 years. If looking at what the spirit of the question may be, then limiting to admin-only tools perhaps isn't as applicable to me. My hierarchy of "tough decisions", in order of decreasing toughness, looks something like ArbCom-related CheckUser investigations, ArbCom cases involving desysops or site bans, appeals to ArbCom having a potential of an unblock, and situations involving bureaucrat tools. Maxim (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim: Hi! {{trout}} for me, I didn't think to cross-reference the list with former arbs. You're right, the question doesn't really apply to you. Thanks for taking th etime :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to point to the three years I was an arbitrator as the best example of my doing work on Wikipedia that I've agreed to do. I am touched that so many of my colleagues (including three threads: 1, 2, and 3) have vouched for the quality (and quantity!) of my work as an arbitrator, which of course includes yourself, Barkeep49. :-) Maxim (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our most recently closed RFB was unsuccessful in part due to opposes grounded in concerns about separation of powers between ArbCom members and bureaucrats. At the time I took this not simply as "one should not have both roles", but rather as a deeper set of concerns related to concentration of roles in a few people at that moment, with potential consequences including tendencies toward unhelpful groupthink. But editors also expressed more general concerns about concentration/separation of powers that might affect their thinking about this candidacy as well. So, the question: based on your experience, what do you think about the benefits and/or drawbacks of overlap between the two groups? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Indignant Flamingo, I find arbcrats a fascinating issue that may be worth writing an essay about some day, but I'll share my thoughts in something more to-the-point than an essay. The main benefit of an arbcrat is that we add a long-term, committed, and trusted user, whether to the arbitrator or bureaucrat corps, as applicable. I wouldn't name a main drawback by itself but it's a combination of separation of powers, groupthink, and community health. The last point is perhaps the more curious one to me: at a certain number of arbcrats, we have a situation that only a small group of users are willing and able to serve in certain high-profile roles. Does that become cabalism in the most toxic sense of the cabal deciding who can join it? Is it because the new user to new admin and onward pipeline is dry? Or perhaps because a certain job is perceived as nasty enough where very few users are up for it? On the whole, I don't think it's inherently bad that we have arbcrats, but when there is a high enough proportion of arbitrators who are also bureaucrats, then it's understandable that certain profound questions are raised. Maxim (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, I'm interpreting "inquiry" as "investigation" and not as "question"; if I'm wrong, then please tell me to answer the question again. :-)
My previous experience as an arbitrator was that we shied away from private hearings—if we got an email that describes something purely on-wiki, then our response was to ask the sender to pursue the matter on-wiki. There is also an idea of not digging unnecessary holes; what this metaphor means here is that we have sometimes ended up with some matter, which perhaps we shouldn't be involved with, or be involved with to the extent that we are, but we've ended up with it anyway, for one reason or another, and it's not straightforward to shake off. One example is at times still hearing appeals that are out-of-scope but we've been hearing the same appeal for something like a decade, so we end up retaining jurisdiction anyway out of a sense of fairness of having told the appellant a year prior to come back in 12 months. Your example from September has been an ArbCom issue for I think 15+ years (I'm working off my memory here, not the archives).
In principle, more transparency is better, and my experience during the three years I was an arbitrator was that we avoided dealing with something in private as much as possible. For example, if it was a formal case with some elements of private evidence, we would summarize and publish that evidence on-wiki to the extent possible. That said, situations absolutely arise which are wholly unsuitable for public discussion, and if ArbCom has been less transparent than ideal, then perhaps it's a question of erring on the side of privacy. A big part of ArbCom's work, whether the public or behind-the-scenes parts, often involve balancing imperfect solutions. This extends to private investigations regarding admins and functionaries: there is a balance between transparency and privacy, and given the specifics of a situation, chances are that no matter how transparency and privacy are balanced, the outcome is imperfect. Maxim (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, I think I will handle the large volume of private work in the same way I did during the three years I was previously an arbitrator, that is to say, I will do a lot of it. More details can be seen in my answer to Barkeep49 (including the links); I also touch on the importance of behind-the-scenes work in my candidate statement and in my essay on arbitration. Maxim (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tryptofish, by tradition ArbCom will not open a case sua sponte. I think this tradition stems primarily from the fact that a formal case request requires a filing party. Certainly, a sitting arbitrator could file a formal case request, but then this filing arbitrator would be presumed recused even if there is no prior reason for recusal. It is also instructive to consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin; while the problem with that case was much deeper than ArbCom acting in case format outside of a formal community request (the best way to describe the primary problem would be "rogue arbitrator"), I think that incident also established to some extent that ArbCom generally shouldn't start a case without a community request.
All that said, Wikipedia isn't necessarily governed by inflexible rules, and exceptions exist. The decision to open the case cited from this year was not unreasonable; exceptional situations may require exceptional actions. The key word here is "exception"—ArbCom generally shouldn't open a case without a community request, but it is on rare occasion a reasonable choice to take. Maxim (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 10:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WereSpielChequers, the problem with some action between admonition and desysop is that it doesn't seem to be a popular course of action. Adminship requires community trust, and if restrictions are placed on an administrator, particularly on tool use, then it is not an uncommon opinion that said restrictions are evidence of a lack of community trust, and thus the appropriate response is desysop. I'm leery of saying that a majority of the arbitrators I've served with hold that view, but it felt, particularly during discussions, that if it wasn't a majority, then it was pretty close to it.
The other complication is that we need the "right" kind of situation. We need an administrator that will participate in the case while having the self-awareness to realize that some actions may have been less-than-ideal, and a situation that doesn't have a case of egregious or chronic tool (mis/ab)use or other suboptimal behaviour. Looking at User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops, this "right" kind of situation is unusual; the GiantSnowman case worked out in that direction, but it is the only substantial example of such a situation. The most likely outcome of a case about administrator conduct nowadays appears to be the administrator either not participating in the case or stepping away from the project as a whole. Maxim (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached in this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relying on the Universal Code of Conduct is not particularly useful to solve English Wikipedia conduct disputes. In theory, it is a minimum set of behavioural standards that apply across all Wikimedia projects. In practice, it is a document generally cribbed from English Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but it lacks the nuance that our existing library of policies and guidelines has, and that's without counting the 20-something years' worth of evolution and application that these documents have on the English Wikipedia. In 2023, ArbCom referenced the UCoC as a principle in only one case; this principle mentioned that ArbCom "may choose to evaluate compliance with English Wikipedia PAG, while still respecting the UCoC", and did not mention the UCOC further in the decision. Citing chapter and verse of the UCoC so far is rare; my observation is that it seems to be most often done by editors disaffected that their preferred outcome was not realized in a given situation based on the application of existing policies and guidelines.
As for the hypothetical situation at hand, it can be broadly described as tendentious editing and tag-teaming. What ArbCom would do depends on the specifics, particularly the presence of prior attempts at resolution. Maxim (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda Arendt, it depends on what one's definition of peace may be, for there is no clean compromise between having an infobox and having no infobox at a given article. It appears that we have less infobox chaos than before and that there are no infobox-related frequent flyers at AE. Given that there are many long-term editors with strong opinions on the matters, perhaps the status quo is not a bad place to be. Maxim (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MicrobiologyMarcus, I find it unwise to consider ArbCom as a monolithic, unchanging body. From observing ArbCom over the years, I would peg the start of a "modern" era around 2010; only 14 cases were heard that year. Since then, I've found that how ArbCom operates is as much as anything a factor of the individuals serving on the Committee and the overall group dynamic (some iterations of the Committee appear to have had, at least at times, profoundly rotten group dynamics). ArbCom is nominally a dispute resolution body; in practice, it has also ended up being in part a disciplinary committee and in part somewhere we send stuff that we can't send anywhere else. In principle, its primary goal is to find an optimal result for the encyclopedia. While notions of justice and fairness are most certainly part of an optimal result, they are not the only considerations. Maxim (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ltbdl, all types of constructive editors are important. Maxim (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, the Portuguese Wikipedia has barred logged-out editing for a few years, which doesn't seem to have crashed that project. On the other hand, I've always liked the concept that there is still no barrier to make a small edit on Wikipedia; most if not all of the Internet nowadays forces at least registration to post anything, if not some sort of mandatory email verification. It would be interesting to see how IP masking pans out, and perhaps how major browsers report user agents at that point in time. It may well be possible that the present sort of openness becomes impractical. Maxim (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scoophole2021, vandalism is vandalism, and it should be reverted or removed. We strive to produce a free encyclopedia containing verifiable information, which includes articles on many children's shows. Maxim (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BilledMammal, it really depends on the specifics of the matter. Under WP:CONEXEMPT, arguably three of the four items involve the WMF in one way or another. ArbCom has a standing monthly call with certain WMF employees, mostly within the scope of Trust and Safety, which provides a forum to discuss matters of mutual concern. My first course of action would be to have a call as soon as possible, with the rest of the Committee, to the WMF to find a mutually acceptable solution. If such a solution isn't found, then I think at that point the next steps would really strongly depend on the specifics of the situation. At any rate, sanctioning editors wouldn't be my first concern in such a mess.
On the other hand, if the push-back happened to be related to a Committee decision, then there would be a responsibility to carefully review the original decision, at least internally. Perhaps it was communicated poorly, or perhaps it is indeed just a poor decision. Committees of the past have certainly made questionable calls, but I don't recall them provoking mass wheel and edit warring, and I like to think that it comes as much as anything from the fact that around this time each year, we as a community can chuck out half the committee, and the rest of it the year after. Maxim (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi xaosflux, it depends on how complete such a divorce would be. As far as appointing functionaries goes, an RfX process where appointment is conditional on a support vote of at least 70% and at least 25 supports would satisfy global policy. Our current practice is to have ArbCom, functionaries, and the community review candidates, in that specific order, prior to a final ArbCom decision. As for removal of access and less drastic steps prior to that (review and removal), which is presently entirely within the purview of ArbCom, that would probably have to be punted to the global Ombudsman Commission.
I could reasonably see appointing functionaries via RfX, but I think the drawback is that we'd get even fewer administrators interested in the job, because of having to run the RfX gauntlet. On the other hand, I don't necessarily see the review and removal functions being removed from ArbCom any time soon. Unless we had AUSC resurrected—which itself was derived from ArbCom—those removal and review functions would end up with a global body. We appear as a community to continue to have a strong preference to keep our own house in order, and I don't think that downloading that job to a global body would prove to be popular among arbitrators, functionaries, or other editors. Maxim (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have served previously on the Arbitration Committee. How would you respond to concerns that not enough new blood is injected into the committee, and how if at all do you think a high proportion of former arbs in the new tranche would affect ArbCom? Fermiboson (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fermiboson, in this election, the most former arbs we can possibly get into the new tranche is three, which means that no less than five of 15 arbs as of 1 January 2024 will be new to ArbCom. That's still a reasonable level of new blood on the Committee, as that needs to be balanced with experience and institutional memory. A willingness and ability to serve is of huge importance to thriving as an arbitrator, so it stands to reason that we'll get a fair few incumbents and ex-arbitrators willing to continue to serve, perhaps in part given their first-hand experience. A final thought I have on the subject is that when considering how the CUOS appointments went this year, coupled with us being in the 10th year of appointing on average fewer than two new administrators per month at RfA, the choice of "new blood" at this year's election could have been worse, perhaps even much worse. Maxim (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that AE in practice is more effective than ANI at addressing disruptive behavior in contentious topic areas? (excepting matters involving parties named in the original arbitration cases) Sennalen (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sennalen, a decent amount of matters end up filtering over to AE when there is already contentious topic designation, and that is by design. All things being equal, AE is designed to (ideally) have a better signal-to-noise ratio, as it is a much more structured venue. On the other hand, if there is a long and drawn-out ANI thread on something within the scope of a contentious topic, then perhaps the problem is particularly complex and not exactly something that falls neatly under "enforcement of an arbitration decision". I suppose that the extreme end of "long and drawn-out ANI thread" ends with ArbCom revisiting a prior case, which is interesting given that contentious topics procedures have been amended recently to make it more straightforward for AE admins to punt something to ArbCom. Maxim (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guerillero, I generally agree with your essay. The tone could be less cynical, but it's also on a topic where cynicism is hard to avoid. If I start nitpicking, then I think the lowest-hanging fruit (realistically, this fruit is lower than the rest but it's not exactly objectively low-hanging) would be point 4 under evidence. I wouldn't say that arbitrators do not understand the background of a case in such a black-and-white manner; I would argue that the understanding of a case's background depends on the nature of the case and the specific arbitrator, and that it is possible that quite a bit of background knowledge is already present. I recall from the time I was on the Committee that from time to time, whether on the mailing list or even on IRC, it was not entirely uncommon to share, for example, an ANI thread, about something that was brewing. That meant if that case was actually presented to us, a few of us definitely had a general idea of what was going on from the get-go. Maxim (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the world are you based? BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BirgittaMTh, I'm well aware of English of being a major lingua franca. It's probably one of the big reasons we have a lot of contentious topics related to (inter)ethnic disputes, perhaps more so than other language Wikipedias—both sides are likely to speak English as an auxiliary language. Maxim (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reinforcing Flamingo's question in the hope that EACH candidate will answer. Since you're at the top of the list, posting here seems to be the simplest way to do that. What exactly is the purpose of an individual having multiple roles?
Also, for you Maxim in particular: Please list ALL of your sock puppets, rather than just the most prominent ones. I don't see why you'd have more than a handful, so perhaps you can explain that briefly.
Finally, not a question but a comment: you didn't address Flamingo's point about "groupthink" -- instead you deflected it into a denial of the paranoid notion of "cabal" which isn't the same thing. Martindo (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martindo, I wouldn't say there's a "purpose" per se to an individual having multiple roles, but it's a creature of how the English Wikipedia works. Administrators already require a high amount of trust to serve; other, more restricted permissions or roles—namely arbitrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter—require even more trust. We have very few new(er) users interested in RfA, and generally those admins who have been around for longer who were not previously interested in serving in those aforementioned more restricted roles tend not to be interested now, which means there isn't a huge pool of prospective candidates to choose from. At prior elections for ArbCom, bureaucrats have generally done well, so it seems that as a whole, there isn't a particular interest in segregating such roles. The corollary here is that I would be unlikely to stand for election if candidates would tend to do poorly on account of being bureaucrats! As an aside, I think that, in particular, name recognition plays a large part in predicting success at ArbCom elections (see User:Barkeep49/Elite for a related essay on that theme).
On the other hand, the German-language Wikipedia has had an explicit non-accumulation-of-function policy since 2009, where one user cannot serve in more than one of the four previously mentioned roles. On the English Wikipedia, on end it would be entirely feasible to bar bureaucrats from other roles, but on the other end, unmixing ArbCom and CheckUser would require redefining ArbCom's role first. (I would be remiss to not point that the German-language Wikipedia CheckUser culture is radically different from ours—it is a tool that used very infrequently, and only in very particular cases.)
I don't think that "deflection" is a fair characterization of my answer to Indignant Flamingo; to me, "cabal" and "groupthink" in this case are two sides of the same coin. The first groupthink oppose in the RfB in question posits the hypothetical that with enough arbcrats, ArbCom in a sense could have a say on administrator promotion in close cases, while already having the say on removal of administrative permissions. To me, that broadly describes a cabal, specifically one where a limited group of users have a disproportionate say on who becomes or remains an administrator. But, keep in mind that these close calls, involving crat chats are rare. Another point to consider is that "herding cats" is a frequent metaphor for getting ArbCom to do something, which is evidence that groupthink isn't the defining characteristic of ArbCom. At the end of the day, the problem for me is that we have a very limited pool of users willing to do certain jobs, so the willingness to serve strongly outweighs an edge case scenario. If the groupthink scenario had more sway, I would imagine there would have been some RfC in the wake of that RfB to either restrict bureaucrats from serving as arbitrators, or, on a more limited scale, to restrict arbcrats from participating in crat chats.
About alternate accounts, as noted in my candidate statement, there are some declared to ArbCom, which per the election rules do not need to be publicly disclosed. The statement also mentions User:Maximr, User:Maxim's JS test account, and some in my user creation log (out of that, those that are mine are User:Maxim testing 1, User:Maxim at UAA, User:Maxypoda, User:Dashing Maxim, and User:Maxim on Wheels). These are either testing accounts (I tend to forget passwords to those) or joke accounts, which, 15 years ago, were much more fashionable than they are now. :-) Maxim (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell

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.

Thank you for standing :) ArbCom makes a lot of tough decisions in user conduct cases, often with potential for community blowback. What's the toughest (or, one of the toughest) decisions you've made with the admin tools? Preferably a situation related to user-conduct, although anything'll do. Talk about the way you approached the situation, the weighed factors, how you came to a decision, any fallout that came as a result, and if you would have done anything differently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These decisions are always difficult. Sanctioning good-faith editors is not something anyone should take any pleasure from and severe sanctions should be a last resort (ie after other options have been tried or look unlikely to be effective). I've done a lot of work at arbitration enforcement and some of the decisions that have to be made there can be unpopular. One of the most recent is actually a block you made. That editor is subject to a topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict and although the topic ban was imposed (by me, for full disclosure) a long time ago, it was imposed because the editor couldn't (or wouldn't) edit the topic area neutrally to the point that it was considered tendentious. While that editor does a lot of good work elsewhere, they had repeatedly violated their topic ban and had been sanctioned multiple times for doing so, including several months-long blocks. In the subsequent discussion and appeal, I endorsed your decision to block indefinitely because the editor had a long history of failing or refusing to abide by restrictions and the disruption caused by allowing them to continue to push the limits would have outweighed the benefits of their other contributions to the encyclopaedia. It was a painful decision and reasonable minds can differ and editors I hold in high esteem, including some you would expect to be opponents, felt that the block was unjust or that indef was excessive but that's where I came down on it as an uninvolved admin.
Back in April, I closed an AE request and enacted a one-year siteban on a long-term editor for their conduct at the intersection of at least three designated contentious topics. They were very polite in their response though some of their friends (I assume they were watching their talk page) were upset by the decision and the blocked editor was confused about which of the three CTOPs I decided to log it under. I wouldn't call that significant blowback, but the decision was obviously not going to curry favour with editors who were friendly with the blocked editor. I don't begrudge their loyalty for a moment but the role of an uninvolved admin (or an arb) is to take a wider, impartial view. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That will always be a challenge with a committee made up of volunteers who have families and jobs and other pressures on their time. My activity levels have peaks and troughs but I've been fairly consistently active for approaching 15 years as an editor and 14 as an admin. I'm better when I have something I know I need to be around for; for example, shepherding an article through FAC often takes a month or two, as does a typical arbitration case (if there is such a thing as "typical"). I've closed a few messy RfCs after having volunteered to do so before they were fully mature (for example, the LUGSTUBS RfC). I'm also good at maintaining consistent low-level activity when I don't have a particular project on the go, so even if I'm not particularly active on the wiki, I can be reachable and participate in email discussions. If something comes up that requires a more detailed look, it might take me a couple of days but I can usually make myself available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. My comment, which I'll say in the form of a question to not get in trouble is, "How does that fit with an Arb's life where beyond volunteering to be draft a case you don't get to decide when your workload is higher or lower unlike closing an RFC or taking an article through FAC where you can decide when to do it?" Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can decide when to submit an FAC, but how long it takes to complete is dependent on a lot of variables. :) I keep a close eye on my emails and can normally send a brief or initial reply (eg voting on a motion) for something urgent even when I'm pressed for time. I own various processes in my real-life job so I get the importance of making sure certain things are done, no matter what else you're dealing with. In a previous job, one of them was legal compliance with immediate safety implications for my staff and the public. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would there, in your opinion, be any specific reason or something you would do if you got voted into the ArbCom? ThatOneWolf ^{(talk contribs)} 04:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a word, no. I'm not running with an agenda to change any one thing. That's not a slight to people who are or do, but a committee of 15 people all determined to put their own stamp on things could get messy! If you'd asked me ten or even five years ago, I would have said I wanted ArbCom to shed a lot of its responsibilities where other bodies (the community, the WMF, functionaries) were capable of taking them but it has largely done so as those bodies (particularly the WMF's Trust and Safety team, which is a lot newer than it feels) have matured. I'd like to see ban appeals handled more transparently and ideally turned over to the community when possible—not all can be, but the community handles ban appeals much better than the incidents that lead to bans in my experience. Finally, I'm a big fan of the recent decision to consider functionary applications on an ad-hoc basis rather than only once a year; this is something I advocated for on the functionaries' mailing list and I'm pleased to see the arbs who suggested it managed to convince the rest of the committee. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes, more transparency is good but we should avoid the appearance of publicly humiliating people. This particular case makes me sad because it involved two editors who obviously cared about Wikipedia and I think were trying to do what they thought was the right thing. The ultimate solution was a good one in my opinion but it took too long to arrive at it. The ideal resolution in my opinion would have been that ArbCom pointed the two editors to the relevant policy subsection and they made the required disclosures and complied with the policy of their own accord and we could treat them as one person when applicable. I can see arguments both for and against ArbCom announcing its involvement but I probably come down in favour because it makes it easier for concerned editors to follow up if the restriction is abided by. It just would have been nice to resolve the matter with less drama and ill feeling. There are many things that cross ArbCom's desk that can't be made public, but when possible the presumption should be in favour of transparency. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A large part of being an Arb is checking the evidence that is presented to you against the facts and the context, and adjusting your position based on what may be added later on which may contradict or shift the original image. At the recent Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#RFA oppose votes, you seemed completely unwilling to accept that an error had been made by an arbitrator even after it had been pointed out repeatedly by multiple editors, and you continued to badger and ridicule opposing viewpoints while at the same time insisting that it was all rather irrelevant. Why should we believe that someone who is not willing to accept evidence when it contradicts their position, will make a fair Arb? Fram (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see I made 10 comments in thread, which in hindsight is probably about 12 too many. I don't see any of them as ridiculing, except to point out that the discussion would not result in any benefit to the reader—RfA is already at least two steps removed from the encyclopaedia, so a noticeboard discussion about an RfA is at least another step removed, and the outcome of the RfA wouldn't change regardless of the result of the discussion so it felt a lot like an argument for its own sake. Reasonable minds can differ on Acalamari's decision and I'm always open to changing my mind if new evidence is presented but there was no evidence in that thread, only opinions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an oversighter for about eight years so I have some idea of the issues that cross ArbCom's desk from the functionaries' and oversight mailing lists. I try to chime in on those discussions when I have something substantive to add but not comment just for the sake of it. I keep a close eye on my emails, which I segregate into folders, and I'm used to dealing with large volumes of email (and even larger volumes of WhatsApp messages!) from previous jobs. At various times I've been one of our most active oversighters (when Primefac doesn't beat me to it!) but, much like ArbCom's private work, there's little on-wiki paper trail and the ideal suppression goes almost completely unnoticed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom were between a rock and a hard place there and I'm not entirely sure where I would have come down. Probably in favour on the grounds that the committee retains jurisdiction over matters it has heard previously. To do nothing was to risk being accused of not taking the issues seriously or actively suppressing criticism; to do anything was to risk being accused of bowing to external pressure. Hard cases make bad law. But in general, the people involved in the dispute and who have tried to resolve it are better placed to decide what the issues are and who the parties should be (and when or if to request a case) than the committee acting on its own initiative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 10:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a school of thought within the community that an admin who needs anything more than slap on the wrist shouldn't be an admin. I don't entirely disagree but I can imagine a case of an admin who does outstanding work in one area (say, anti-vandalism) but has problems in another (for example hasty or out-of-process speedy deletions). In that case it might be possible to restrict them from problem area, but that brings us back to does the community want an admin who can't restrict themselves voluntarily? If not, that leaves us with admonish or desysop. I would like it if a desysopped editor could repair their reputation and gain the tools again but it hasn't happened yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached in this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How much there is for ArbCom to do depends to a certain extent on how much can't be handled elsewhere. Most enwiki policies go beyond the minimum baseline set by the UCoC though there may be edge cases that the UCoC catches that our policies don't, and it may be applicable to cross-wiki situations such as this or to situations on smaller wikis as the Elbonian Wikipedia presumably is. As for what ArbCom could do (I'm not necessarily saying that it should do all of these things):
"Senility" is arguably a personal attack, but could also just be clumsy shorthand for "lost touch with community norms", which is a concern we've had with some our admins. This would need evaluating but if the admin is participating here regularly and has kept up with policy and culture changes, there should be sanctions for the accuser. ArbCom should also inform the WMF so the T&S team can look into goings-on on the Elbonian Wikipedia in case the desysop there was politically motivated.
"Too young" is similarly a potential personal attack. It's highly unlikely that an editor so young would be able to establish the track record and demonstrate the maturity necessary to pass RfA, but if they did, their age would be suppressible. An editor pretending to be a child or somebody attempting to dox the admin (correctly or otherwise) would be different problems. All could be handled by oversighters within existing mechanisms. An oversight block is a likely result and these are subject to peer review on the oversight team's mailing list. ArbCom could intervene, but it's more likely to be an individual arb in their capacity as an oversighter, and discussion of any further action would take place off-wiki. As an aside, is anyone old enough to be exposed to such horrors?
RfA is a well-trafficked forum so an influx of partisan votes might not cause a major problem, or the community and bureaucrats might be able to handle it without the need for ArbCom intervention. If they can't, ArbCom could consider issuing a motion that asks the 'crats to reconsider the consensus in light of new information; they could potentially desysop the new admin and instruct that they redo the RfA if they want to regain the tools.
If the community is unable to handle the matter, a contentious topics designation for the Elbonian Civil War might be helpful, either by motion of after hearing a full case.
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unfortunate that infoboxes are so controversial. They are clearly helpful on some articles but I can see the argument that they're useless on others. I don't think it's healthy or constructive to have roving bands of editors who turn up in every infobox discussion. But the CTOPs designation simply recognises that the subject is controversial and provides a mechanism for admins to address disruption if necessary. As for peace, I don't think we'll get that short of a sitewide consensus determining the criteria for an article to have an infobox. And even then... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been attempts to argue that ArbCom decisions have been unfair, unjust, or just plain wrong for as long as ArbCom has been making decisions that affect controversial topics. They usually fail to realise that ArbCom is not a court serving the concept of judgement but a body of experienced Wikipedians trying to do what is best for the encyclopaedia. That may, unfortunately, result in a decision that is (or at least feels) unjust. Milder sanctions, such as a topic ban, may be appropriate for long-term editors with varying interests who have lost perspective or have a blind spot when it comes to one topic; whereas an editor who joined Wikipedia to pursue an agenda and has little interest in editing other topics is likely to get a site ban. That said, ArbCom should evaluate each case on its merits and avoid the urge to decide things a certain way to conform to a pattern and should always be prepared to do what is necessary to prevent disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why you would like to see most ban appeals turned over to the community. (No need to explain your caveat regarding cases involving private information; that is self-explanatory). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the community handles issues that lead to topic and site bans of experienced editors very poorly. The discussions are unmoderated and tend to sprawl out of control, possibly because emotions are high, possibly because there are a variety of possible outcomes. But the community actually handles appeals of these bans quite well. We're quite good at deciding who we want back and on what terms once they've been away for long enough to let the dust settle. On the principle that ArbCom should only handle what the community can not (or will not), it would be nice if credible appeals could be decided by the community when the reason for the block can be made public. There are details to be worked out and it's not something that could happen overnight but it's a worthy aspiration, I feel. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on Fram's question, you made this comment in the discussion cited: Contrary to popular opinion, not every decision you disagree with is open to endless challenges. Go and write an article instead of wasting time with meaningless drama. Do you believe that your tone in that comment was appropriate? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would I hold it up as a shining example of how Wikipedians should conduct themselves in internal discussions? No. Do I feel it was a legitimate expression of frustration that a discussion about a vote that would have no direct effect on the encyclopaedia was continuing—and deteriorating into analogies that bordered on personal attacks—even after the bureaucrat in question had politely and thoughtfully explained himself? Yes. The readers don't care about our internal politics and it's the readers we're here to serve. I'm happy that actions can be challenged, it's an important part of our processes, but if reviews become too frequent and too long, we would never get anything done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your platform you express a desire for the committee to devolve more appeals to the community. Can you explain more about your thinking and whether this would involve any duplication of editor time (as I think editor time is one of our most precious commodities at this point)? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would go further and say that editor time is our only meaningfully finite resource and the main impediment to achieving whatever we wan to achieve. My rough thinking—and it is only rough at this point; the details would have to be worked by the committee and the community to make sure the community was happy to take on the work and that the committee wasn't overwhelming them with appeals—is that the committee (or a subcommittee if Wug gets their way and BASC is spun out again) would vet appeals sent to it to make sure they weren't vexatious, time wasting, or unsuitable for public discussion, then open a discussion at whichever venue everyone is happy with and invite the community to discuss it instead of 15 people evaluating every appeal. By only passing on credible appeals, we avoid wasting the community's time; by allowing the community to do the legwork, we avoid overwhelming one small group of editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's any one decision that I thought was completely bonkers. "Administrators encourage" raised an eyebrow as an AE admin—most of the instruments admins have at their disposal are blunt ones, and sometimes a warning is given where a blunt instrument would be excessive but no finer one is available. I see the point about considering (potential) recidivism, but sometimes you need to give an editor a little rope. AE has the advantage of not needing a lengthy discussion if an editor runs out of rope, so the bureaucratic overhead of giving a final "final" warning that goes unheeded is minimal; the conclusion is the same, it just takes a little longer to arrive at. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any one thing that ArbCom is failing in, which is not to say that it get everything right all the time. It seems one of the biggest challenges, as is common in volunteer communities, is peaks and troughs in availability of committee members. If elected, I'd love to work with other committee members on streamlining the workload so that at least the time demands are more predictable and arbs can use more of their time on substantive issues and less on typing/searching/tracking/"where do we keep the widgets". It looks like some of this is already under discussion and more technical minds than mine are working on software solutions, which is pleasing. Let's use software for what software is good at and hopefully let the humans do more thinking and less repetitive processing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy today (seeing my mother for the first time in nearly a year) but I'll answer this one because it's easy. All editors who are working in good faith towards the improvement or maintenance of the encyclopaedia are equally important. Writers can't write if they're too busy reverting vandalism. Our template coders take a significant burden off of others. Our abuse filter managers make the patrollers' work easier. Our new page patrollers keep the encyclopaedia free of copyright violations, spam, and other problems. And while our internal politics should always serve the encyclopaedia, discussion is essential to Wikipedia and a certain amount of disagreement is inevitable. Some editors are skilled at keeping these discussions on track or extracting consensus from a messy thread. We need all these skills to keep Wikipedia functioning and improving. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting question to ponder. My position has changed over the years. I was asked this in my second RfA and at the time I felt that registration should be required. These days I think I'm in favour of anonymous editing (in the literal sense of a-nonymous, having no name, not the synonym for private or unknown). From a counter-abuse standpoint, compulsory registration makes sense—it creates a barrier that makes it just slightly more difficult to make a disruptive edit, and we can respond to abuse much more effectively from an account than we can from a dynamic IP address. On the other hand, no matter how easy we make registration, I don't think I would bother if I had to register just to fix a typo, and that shuts off a potential in-road to a new editor and the typo goes unfixed. It also leaves us open to abuse, but our anti-abuse mechanisms have got much more sophisticated as the project has matured. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, articles on children's TV (especially the older or more obscure shows) are plagued with unhelpful edits and attract some of our more obsessive long-term abuse cases so I commend the editors who try to keep those articles clean. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this ANI thread, you blocked EEng for a week, adding "I strongly oppose any early unblock (to the point that I would have made the block a discretionary sanction if it weren't for the techinicality of alerts), and will seriously consider filing a request for arbitration against any admin who does so without a very clear consensus.". The block was overturned by another admin; a further admin commented, "The consensus to unblock was clear, but even if it was debatable, a blocking admin does not get to issue preemptive threats that their blocks are not to be overturned by a community consensus, as read by an uninvolved admin, unless the consensus meets their own standard for being "clear" enough. Hell no. Shocking, chilling, authoritarian, borderline abusive conduct coming from HJ, who we all know knows better." How do you feel about that block now? Is there anything you would have done differently or do you feel your actions were about right, as other editors did support the block? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no ill will towards EEng. I seem to recall having a positive interaction with him a while ago, or at least opposing sanctions against him. His brand of humour is not my cup of tea but generally I'm content to just ignore it. On this occasion, I felt that his conduct crossed the line from "possibly annoying but ignorable" into disruptive. Just how disruptive was a bone of contention at ANI and I'm not sure I judged that correctly. Why I decided on a sitewide block and not a partial block is lost in the mists of time (perhaps because pblocks were still new then?), but a partial block is probably where I would start these days on the principle that we can escalate later if it becomes necessary. As for my remarks about discretionary sanctions, I didn't intend them to be a reflection on EEng specifically. One of our great difficulties, and part of the reason that AE blocks come with such strictures, is that blocks of good editors who sometimes cause disruption are often rapidly overturned or commuted to "time served" before they can have any meaningful impact. Blocks are one of the few ways we have of dealing with problematic conduct, and if a blocking admin has made a prima facie case that the block is necessary or justified and it's not clearly a mistake/abusive/out of process, I feel we should wait for more input—or ideally some reassurance from the blocked editor that they see the problem with their edits—before unblocking or considering next steps. The quid pro quo, of course, is that admins should only impose such blocks rarely and after sufficient consideration, and that the block should be well explained. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's always better to discuss these things before they get out of hand. ArbCom can be a good mouthpiece for the community to the WMF for times when the community needs to speak with a single voice. At the end of the day, it's their website; it runs on their servers maintained by their staff. The content is ours, and we have the right to fork, but we would then be subject to somebody else's rules because someone needs to be legally responsible. But I think the WMF and the community have learnt from Framgate and the superprotect debacle and are hopefully more aware when dealing with explosive situations. Ultimately, if an admin or interface admin reinstated an action that had been reversed by the WMF (and clearly indicated as an office action), I would need an extremely compelling reason to vote to reinstate the tools that the WMF would almost certainly remove. I would just hope that cooler heads would prevail before we got there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current system works well. Access to these tools should not be decided based on popularity. We need functionaries who are willing to stick their heads above the parapet and make a tough decision sometimes, even if it doesn't play well to the crowd. The current system gives the community a chance to vet the candidates and raise any issues with ArbCom, because the community generally knows who it trusts and who it doesn't. ArbCom then makes the final decision and decides whether any concerns raised are disqualifying, because ArbCom knows the functionaries and knows the workload. I'm not convinced that elections or an RfA-style appointments process as other wikis have would increase the quantity or quality of successful applicants. In fact, evidence from the last time elections were used suggests the opposite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could technically competent user please fix crazy numbering of questions? bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 14:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
It seemsTamzin is that technically competent user. I'm surprised Bishzilla couldn't frighten them into line! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you young Harry. [Bishzilla sticks the little Tamzin in her pocket for rest and relaxation after clever fix.] bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 23:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Does anything in WP:FRINGE override WP:IMPARTIAL? Sennalen (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. They are two sides of the same coin. Neutrality and impartiality mean that we record "just the facts", as given in reliable sources. In scientific terms, that means we're interested in results that can be proven and reproduced. These can be considered facts and should be reported as such. Where something is unknown or not well understood, we should say that. Some (many?) fringe and conspiracy theories become notable in their right and we should cover these as appropriate. What we should not say is that (for example) acupuncture can cure cancer—a claim for which there is no basis in science—either in the article about acupuncture or the article about the fringe theory. Nor is impartiality achieved by giving the fringe theory undue weight, which may be any weight at all. Having vocal or persistent adherents does not increase the credibility of the claim, which is why Wikipedia appears to be tough on people who come here to advocate for such theories. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, "pick something I wrote and fight me on it" is a novel style of question! ;) I was tempted to take you on over Do not refuse to take part. The committee will move forward with a case without you and boycotting the case often leads to increased sanctions. because, at least with admin cases, precedent suggests once the case is accepted the result is inevitable. Then I considered They are not a monolithic cabal of lizard people for the humour value. But I think I'll take The clerks are the worker bees that make ArbCom function. Without them, the committee's work would grind to a halt.. While true on the face of it, the practice seems to be that clerks largely confine themselves to posting notices and reminding people of word limits and never take decisive action to maintain order on arbitration pages. Although ancient history now, I found it infuriating during the workshop phase of the GamerGate case. I participated in the topic area and the case strictly as an uninvolved admin but some of the parties took it as an opportunity to smear me and try to force my withdrawal. I felt that the clerks should have taken (and should be empowered to take) decisive action to remove spurious allegations and uphold the status of uninvolved admins. As it is, this kind of misconduct in cases is rarely addressed in my experience, especially in big cases—regular admins won't touch anything within ArbCom's jurisdiction, the arbs are busy drafting and are probably swamped with reading material, and the clerks are essentially paper tigers. That's something I'd like to change if I'm elected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your time as an administrator, what do you think is the worst decision you have made? What actions did you take to remedy it afterwards? Fermiboson (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very interesting question; I hope you won't think I'm shirking it if I say it's difficult to answer. It's been some years since I stood for a position that involved a lot of community vetting, which is usually when you learn what people remember you for, especially if it's negative. A very long time ago, I co-certified an RfC/U on YellowMonkey for what I felt was persistent (not egregious, but long-term) misuse of admin tools. Sadly, the whole thing turned into a blood bath and lots of people took the opportunity to get in a free punch at YM's expense and he left the site. Although I believe a desysop was necessary, I respected YM as an editor and I regret my part in the bloodbath.
More recently (but still ancient history by Wikipedia's standards, I blocked an admin during the mess that was GamerGate (cf. WP:ARBGG, think Arab-Israeli dispute but everyone involved is computer literate and the whole of Reddit is descending on half a dozen Wikipedia articles) for a comment he made on a talk page. He appealed and my action was overturned. Now that I look back on it, the block was an overreaction and created a lot of ill feeling that I should have foreseen and could probably have avoided. I spent several months at the end of 2014 and the start of 2015 trying to keep that article and its talk page BLP-compliant (the log might give some idea of what I was up against) and I guess I developed a hair trigger. The comment wasn't appropriate but I don't think the editor intended it to sound the way I interpreted it and there were less dramatic ways of dealing with it which might have achieved the desired result without the wasted time and energy. As Risker put it, my response was "more than was appropriate to the sanctionable activity". In more recent times, I partially blocked an admin from an AfD after an AE complaint; although their conduct there was disruptive, they later stated they felt the block was punitive because they already intended to step away before I made the pblock. I have mixed feelings on that one but if I'd known that was their intention I wouldn't have blocked. As for remedies, there's often little that can be done after the fact besides obviously reversing any admin actions that haven't already been reversed; sometimes an apology and explanation goes a long way (eg when I blocked Tamzin's alt account because I thought it was harassing her!) but the best thing I can do is learn from experience and try not to make the same mistake twice. Apolgies for the length; if you want to go into any specifics, please feel free to follow up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sdrqaz

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.

Thank you for standing :) ArbCom makes a lot of tough decisions in user conduct cases, often with potential for community blowback. What's the toughest (or, one of the toughest) decisions you've made with the admin tools? Preferably a situation related to user-conduct, although anything'll do. Talk about the way you approached the situation, the weighed factors, how you came to a decision, any fallout that came as a result, and if you would have done anything differently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A recent tough conduct-related decision is last month's block of Jay Sanvictores. Jay had been making many edits in the mainspace and talkspace that looked like test edits, but none of the edits seemed malicious or in bad faith. As I've noted before, it's a lot harder to shut the door on a good-faith disruptor and this is what the Committee sometimes has to do, for the greater good of the project. Jay had received a welcome message about test edits and a notice that they should not have been creating blank articles. At that point, I think that a block for disruption or not being here build an encyclopaedia would have been within administrative discretion – not that I would have done so myself, but certainly within policy.
However, to give them a second chance, I left a handwritten message explaining why their behaviour was disruptive and nudged them to projects in other languages, since they were perhaps unable to communicate effectively in English. I watched the page that I had deleted and their talk page to see if there was any response or any further disruption. They unfortunately did the same thing again and I blocked them, leaving a handwritten note again. Given that their first language probably wasn't English, I tried to keep the messages as simple possible, while balancing the need for friendliness and the need to communicate the risks of a block.
I didn't receive any fallout for it, but Jay has not responded to my messages, nor have they edited any other projects. I think that there's not much I would've done differently, though I could've simplified my messages further or made the block time-limited instead of indefinite, but there would've been the risk of Jay causing more disruption after the block's expiry. Ultimately, I think that I did what I could to give them a "way out" from being blocked, but wasn't successful and had to block them to reduce disruption to the project.
This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my administrative work is the prime example of doing work that I've agreed to do, even when it becomes hard, averaging nearly 400 logged actions per month (this does not take non-logged administrative actions into account, such as declining requests for protection or for speedy deletion). Administrative work becomes hard when you feel obliged to make decisions that will not be popular, even if they are right. I am, of course, aware that the need to have active members of the Committee is far greater, given that when I am inactive I would only be able to rely on 14 colleagues instead of 878 and there would be many decisions that can only be made through the consensus of the Committee.
As you know, Barkeep, I take adminship and my duty to the Community seriously. Hundreds of people took the time to evaluate the information they had, regardless of whether they voted; as a result, I have tried to stay active as an administrator because I view it as an obligation to the Community. That obligation would be even greater as a Committee member. When I can only put a limited amount of time into Committee matters, I will seek to prioritise those that require participation from as many members as possible and will communicate those difficulties to my colleagues. When I am unable to participate at all, I would seek to be marked as inactive so that business can proceed without the Committee needing to wait for my input. If these periods become unacceptably frequent or unacceptably long, I would resign so that editors can choose a replacement who can serve the Community with the energy and dedication that it deserves.
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that you mean inquiries as 'investigations' and not just as 'questions', yes. I'm reminded of Beeblebrox's answer to one of my questions at ACE2021: when we keep matters completely private, decisions may be perceived as carrying less weight than in public. Measures to increase transparency, such as quarterly updates on block appeals, are good first steps. Speaking more specifically regarding that case, I think that having other layers of scrutiny to the Committee's actions is a Good Thing – while the Committee is made up of experienced people with diverse viewpoints, it is still fallible and should welcome feedback from the Community where possible, both to decrease the chances of things falling through the cracks and to increase the chances that the decisions being made are for the good of the project. The Committee may be unable to delve into specifics when the transparency principle conflicts with obligations under privacy policy, but where possible we should push to keep people accountable, especially since they hold positions of trust.
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the volume of work, I would make sure to triage the information that I receive to ensure that the Committee can continue running smoothly – some will be "core" Committee work, while others will be peripheral work. That does not mean that they are unimportant, but that we sometimes have to make hard decisions that will result in imperfect outcomes on what issues are more pressing and demanding of our attention and must take care that as little as possible falls through the cracks. If I am unable to cope with the volume of work due to personal issues, I would communicate with my colleagues to ensure that they aren't waiting for my input (as stated above) and will seek to stay active on the essentials of Committee work where possible so that my absence will not be as deeply felt. Please clarify if I've misunderstood or focused on an unintended aspect of your question.
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Purely as a matter of policy, the Committee is certainly able to do so. Whether it should have done so is a thornier question: the short answer is that the Committee should be very wary of doing so, as it may lead to a perception of bias and of pre-determined outcomes. In many situations, that is enough to stay with the usual methods – we have seen individual Committee members recusing to file a case request as an individual editor. With regards to this case specifically, Barkeep said in February 2023 that the Committee had received "multiple private requests to do something in this topic area" and I said at ACE last year that a case should have been opened for the area in January 2022, predicting that the Committee's solution to the initial Warsaw concentration camp request would not lead to meaningful change. From a philosophical point of view, I think that the fact that the Committee was willing to propose the case sua sponte showed that it was willing to be more proactive than reactive – I know that it is simply not possible most of the time – and perhaps points at how pressing the Committee thought the matter was.
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 10:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes at the heart of the tension between my belief that holding administrators accountable is absolutely crucial and my belief that nuance is needed in Committee proceedings (see my statement), so thank you for posing it. I'm not sure that the Committee has completely closed the door on intermediate sanctions (such as in 2019 and in 2020), but it is certainly rare.
The short answer is that it depends on how the administrator reacts to the feedback and criticism that they receive, and how likely the behaviour is to recur. Quite frankly, good administrators should be responsive to criticism and should work to improve after being told of their errors. One could say, therefore, that if an administrator is unable to take on the feedback given prior to an arbitration case, they are not fit to continue being one; that the situation has escalated to a Committee case should be more than enough as an indicator that something has gone wrong. This hardline view, however, does not take into account the tendency for editors to petition the Committee much more quickly in administrative misconduct cases, and the tendency of Committee members to accept them. Since administrators in these situations tend to be desysopped, this is not encouraging, as it gives an air of inevitability and does not incentivise them to participate in the case.
I'm sympathetic to the position that since administrators are supposed to be trusted by the Community, restrictions are indicators that they are no longer trusted and should not continue being one. However, the dangers are that we are too unforgiving: it is too simplistic to tell them that they can seek Community reinstatement after removal of their tools because nobody in our modern history has successfully done so – multiple people have tried that route and failed. While those results can be construed to mean that the Committee's decisions were right, the Committee is composed of fallible humans and it would be too reductive to conclude that.
Thinking deeper, I would say that editorial restrictions are generally more acceptable for me than restrictions on tool use, and I could see myself supporting narrow restrictions if it is clear that their misconduct is only in that area – once they get more complicated, it begs the question of why they should remain an administrator. I unfortunately don't view the 2019 restriction as being particularly successful: while striving for nuance is absolutely commendable, the Community and Committee do not have the sufficient energy and motivation to ensure that such complicated restrictions are being followed.
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached in this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have certainly been tensions, including due to the rollout of the Vector 2022 interface. I think that it's worth noting before answering this question that while the Code does apply to the English Wikipedia, we can indirectly enforce it through our policies and guidelines in nearly all circumstances – the Foundation intended for it to be "the most basic standards for conduct across the movement. Projects with well-developed policies typically meet or exceed the UCoC expectations" and said that it was intended for projects with few behavioural policies. I think that it is very unlikely that we will be perceived as having not enforced it properly, especially since the Fram affair.
Given that this is a very tense situation in real life and on-wiki, the Committee should be careful not to inflame these emotions further. Accusations of senility and being "too young to write about rape" would be insults based on age, and disclosure of personal data; bringing issues across from the Elbonian project into the English one may be "following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them" (also 3.1). The "nothing more than rows of squares" comment may be an insult based on ethnicity and race (3.1), but I think a more likely explanation is that the Elbonian language characters are not rendering properly (my devices, for example, give me error codes for some of the scripts listed here). If users from other projects are voting at RfA here without being active editors here and having the proficiency to read/write basic English, it may raise questions of how they were aware of the RfA and whether there has been any off-wiki canvassing.
The Committee has a responsibility to examine the evidence in the case requests. For the first case, unless there is further evidence to support the idea that the administrator has fallen short of the standards of this project, it may not be viable to have a case based on their conduct. It is very rare to fully protect talk pages unless they are redirects or archives, but it may have been justifiable if there was consistent vandalism/disruption from extended-confirmed accounts. On smaller projects, the safeguards for retaliation against administrators may not be as strong – it is important not to take the desysop at face value. The Committee may have to issue warnings for importing issues from other projects.
The assertion that someone is a minor is usually suppressible for their protection, as it is a disclosure of someone's personal information. Unless the new administrator is breaching editorial or behavioural expectations, she is free to edit in whichever topic she wishes; it is not for the Committee to rule that based on her purported age, she cannot or should not go into certain areas. That is the same for other users – unless they have actual violations of policy, they cannot be excluding or hounding someone out of a topic area because of their age.
If it is clear that the situation is untenable and has become too complex to handle for the Community (it can usually deal with RfAs by itself), The Committee may need to open a case on conduct in relation to the Elbonian civil war to address harassment and possible off-wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry. Designation as a contentious topic may be necessary and it should keep Trust and Safety aware of the evolving situation, given the real-life implications and possibility for harm and harassment.
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my comments at last year's elections still apply: "while there are strong feelings on both sides of the dispute, the issue isn't as unmanageable as it was ... as with most disputes in contentious areas with many participants, there were some unpleasant statements being made about editors' motivations and stances". The Mozart discussion seemed better-tempered than the Laurence Olivier one that you asked me about last year. While there haven't been any logged enforcement actions this year, El C's comment about the presence of the "contentious topics" designation being a good deterrent is worth noting.
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the 2023 paper, I am concerned by the considerations the Community gives to social capital, and the responses it gives to people trying to hold others accountable. While I haven't experienced the edit-warring factions it talks about, I have seen legitimate concerns raised at people's talk pages or at community noticeboards be effectively disregarded. The Community has the ability to sanction administrators and other users with social capital, but whether it wants to or will do so is another question. In other words, unblockables exist.
This is to the detriment of the project and to those users. Others get discouraged and disheartened, and may leave the project. Some people in privileged positions don't feel like they've done anything wrong because friends tell them that, but true friends don't let their friends get sanctioned.
For the 2017 paper, I am concerned that drafters have an overly disproportionate influence on how the case is decided – while I think it is unsurprising given the format of how cases are conducted, point five of Guerillero's guide to arbitration says that most non-drafters will follow what the drafters have proposed.
If I am elected, I would continue listening to different perspectives, even if I disagree with them. If I feel that an issue is falling through the cracks because of our biases as a Committee – members in the modern era have all been administrators – I will work to ensure that we have placed ourselves in someone's (figurative) shoes. As a drafter, I will work to ensure that such perspectives are well-represented in the proposed decision, even if I would not vote for it; as a non-drafter, I will work to come to my own conclusions based on the evidence and, if necessary, propose alternatives.
I feel like there's a substantial difference in the tone of your platform from last year (what I would say is presenting an optimistic vision) and this year (what I would say is presenting a "arbcom needs to be shaken up" vision). Given this and the value I know you place on privacy (where arbs often will reveal things about themselves to colleagues that they often don't share even onwiki), how, if at all, do you plan to build relationship and trust among your colleagues? Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see this characterisation. My statement this year was intended to make a stronger and more proactive case for why I feel that I should be elected and that even if you disagree with my opinions, they are still needed on the Committee.
I hope to continue building relationships and trust with my colleagues through honest and professional communication – policy or philosophical disagreements do not have to become conflicts, and if I commit to something, I will work to the best of my ability to ensure that it is done. Crucially, if real life gets in the way or if it turns out that it is beyond my ability, I will communicate that to the Committee. Humility is key – as I said in my statement, "Part of being a Wikipedian is the need to always listen and learn: that did not change after I became an administrator and will not change if I am elected." Please clarify if I have focused on the wrong part of your question, because I am not sure how the value I place on privacy is connected to the rest of it – I will be extremely careful not to disclose any of that to non-Committee members.
Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify. First, I should have noted in my original question that both positive and shake things up platforms have been successful. But to answer what seems to be where I wasn't clear, wisdom that was passed down to me, and which has proven true during my time on the committee, is that a sense that all the arbs are in it together, even, or especially when, you disagree is a crucial aspect to a functioning committee. One way I think that happens is that many arbs share a little more of themselves as people than they do onwiki. This ranges from functional - what time zone are you in, do you use IRC and/or Discord? - to a bit more revealing - arbs share something about their interests, jobs, and/or families. So while the list is on the whole very professional in tone, it's been my experience that the personal elements that help smooth some of the hard parts that come from the work that has to be done. From what I know of you, it seems like you may not be comfortable with any of that personal side and so combining that with what I read as you anticipating that you will fight hard for the things you believe in (for instance, I read I will not be obstructionist or contrarian for its sake as saying you will be willing to resist decisions and be the only one to hold a position when there is a point to doing so) it seems like you might have a vision of you standing apart from others on the committee. Or maybe that's wrong and you have other ideas about this, hence my question. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and for your intriguing thoughts. For what it's worth, I still have a positive vision for the Committee. I think that there are many different ways to achieve an environment in which we feel "a sense that all the arbs are in it together, even, or especially when, you disagree" – in addition to what I said above, constant recognition that my colleagues are all human and have different priorities both on- and off-wiki that demand their attention in different ways is important. Sometimes being willing to listen to someone sharing their difficulties goes a long way. I also do not see myself standing apart from others on the Committee – we will be working together for the greater good of the project and it would be naïve to think that I can accomplish that alone.
In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022-2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have criticised the motion that rejected the Warsaw concentration camp request in both last year's elections and on this page, so I think that that is certainly close to the worst, if not the worst. Obviously, my criticism this year is taken with the benefit of having watched the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case unfold, so perhaps it isn't completely fair.
In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout the 2023 term, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the six retirements/resignations in 2023, which is a 50% increase from 2022, I'm concerned by Committee burnout and inactivity. I have seen complaints from various Committee members about how inefficiently information is presented to them and how much of it is fragmented. Solutions may be to reform the way in which the Committee processes its business or to devolve some processes to trusted members of the Community; I will approach these proposals with an open mind.
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One who works for the greater good of the encyclopaedia and listens, always seeking to improve themself and others.
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time. Although I have never edited Wikipedia without an account, I understand that having a requirement to create an account is yet another barrier to editing. It remains to be seen how the Foundation implements IP masking / temporary accounts – the English Wikipedia will probably revisit and discuss this issue when we know more.
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as vandalism damages our body of work and the encyclopaedia's credibility. Unfortunately, working at AIV and RfPP have told me that it's not always immediately clear to uninvolved administrators if unsourced changes to those articles are actually vandalism.
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a strong believer of stopping disruption through discussion (A12). I hope that the Foundation would not inflame the situation further by reverting the administrator that carried out the Community's will, and hope that the Community would give the Foundation reasonable time to react to its consensus before enforcing it. The Community has every right to come to consensuses and when they come to ones that are contrary to what the Foundation believes, the Foundation should take the time to listen to the Community and make adjustments to their approach where possible.
Going back to the Fram affair, my understanding is that the Committee's relations with the Foundation have improved significantly and there is a great deal more dialogue between the two bodies. My approach would hew closer to 2019's Reversion of office actions motion than to 2014's Kww admonished motion – in the former, the Committee acted as the Community's representatives, discussing extensively with the Foundation. The Foundation, in turn, deferred the outcome of both the immediate and larger cases to the Committee. I hope that we would be able to come to a similar resolution in your hypothetical scenario. My answer assumes that you are asking about the Foundation-related aspects of the policy and not the Committee-related elements, so please clarify if that is not the case.
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to keep an open mind, but the Committee is well-equipped to deal with private evidence, while the Community at large cannot access CheckUser and suppression logs – this means that it is in a disadvantaged position when trying to hold functionaries accountable. The current system of making appointments with input from functionaries and the Community is probably the best system we can have, given the balance given between getting information-rich input and involving the Community. This does not mean that it is perfect – the applicants' questionnaire is a place where we can improve and it remains to be seen how successful the recent reform is – but unless there is a pressing need or widespread desire (an RfC where the Community expresses the desire to take over the process, for example), the existing one is good enough.
In my time on the committee, I have proposed, implemented, and then regretted changes as well as presented changes that could not command a majority of the committee. I noticed in your statement a desire to refine the committee. Could you please explain the changes you would like to make and how you propose working with your colleagues to pass them? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote my statement, I was concerned that voters may view it as a desire to be consistently uncooperative when working with my colleagues, which is not the case. My promise to "speak up to refine and strengthen the Committee" was linked to the point before it: "As a deliberative body, the Committee needs diverse perspectives to make the best decisions". I therefore meant that I would refine the Committee's decision-making process by ensuring that it was well-informed and fully considered all viewpoints – this would refine the Committee as an institution too. Sorry for not making that clearer.
As for changes I would like to make to the Committee, I've written about cultural and structural changes in my answers to MicrobiologyMarcus (greater recognition of social capital, the role of drafters and non-drafters), to Tamzin (greater transparency), to WereSpielChequers (how we should deal with administrative conduct cases), and to Red-tailed hawk (burnout and inactivity). I've also written about how I will work with my colleagues through honest and humble communication in my answer to Barkeep49. I'm not under the illusion that these changes will be easy, but I'm certain that whatever happens, we will be working for the greater good of the project.
At what point does WP:STONEWALLING escalate beyond just a content dispute into disruptive behavior that is appropriate for ANI or AE to act on? Sennalen (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it escalates into disruptive behaviour when it becomes a pattern, be that over various pages or over time. Like I said in my statement, an important thing to consider is "how they respond to feedback and scrutiny – do they listen and improve, or do they scold the person that was brave enough to call them out?". It should also go without saying that AE would only be appropriate when the various contentious topics requirements are met.
A completely optional question. I was interested to see that you created the Good Article shadow docket, which happens to cite the related article in-chambers opinion that I created (and should update and improve). In the spirit of my Final exam for wikilawyers, and without taking ourselves too seriously, can you analogize any aspect of the U.S. Supreme Court's shadow docket practice to the Arbitration Committee's current procedures? Are there any lessons that ArbCom should learn from the Court's experiences with increased shadow-docket activity in recent years? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fascinating question. For those who are unaware, the shadow docket is a U.S. Supreme Court practice of making decisions on an accelerated timeframe, frequently with little or no explanation. Probably the most important analogy is not strictly a procedure of the Committee, but a practice instead. The Court has been criticised for effectively short-circuiting processes in the lower courts by issuing emergency orders before cases on the merits are decided. As I said to WereSpielChequers, administrator misconduct cases tend to be accepted much more quickly than other cases by the Committee and wrote in my answer to MicrobiologyMarcus about the Community's ability to deal with administrators and other users with social capital – by accepting an administrative misconduct case early, there is a danger that the Community does not get adequate opportunity to discuss the possibility of intermediate sanctions (or no sanctions at all) and escalates the matter too quickly. There is also a danger of having a bias towards sanctions once a case is opened: while some may feel that closing a case without sanctions would have wasted time, that is not true.
There are many other analogies that can be made, but I've chosen to focus on the one above (please note if you'd like me to go into more detail): some Committee decisions do not disclose how members voted; some Committee decisions with private votes come with minimal explanation unless a member chooses to elaborate more on the noticeboard talk page; some Committee members do not give explanations for why they've voted the way they did in on-wiki votes; how desysops can sometimes take place with votes of a few members instead of a majority (compare that with the role circuit justices play in the shadow docket).
Lessons to take from the Court's experiences are that increased use has (among other factors) led to increasing doubts in the institution due to the lack of transparency and accountability. When decisions are made without parties having sufficient opportunity to defend themselves and without sufficient information, they lose legitimacy. The Court has also caused great confusion in the lower courts when it has short-circuited decisions that were pending before the lower courts – is the Community less willing to deal with administrative misconduct cases when it knows that it can refer cases to the Committee? (I know that these experiences aren't perfectly translatable in this instance).
If we were to complete the Supreme Court analogy, I think that a real danger is that the Committee becomes complacent and reflexively ignores criticism, feeling that the instinct of the Community should be to give it deference. There have been recent essays in Slate and Vanity Fair that warn of the dangers of not properly scrutinising the Supreme Court. I don't think that we currently have an issue of being too deferential to the Committee – talk pages of proposed decisions and the committee noticeboard tend to have probing questions and criticism – but we may, if we're not careful enough, have issues of instinctively brushing off feedback.
I have recently finished a rewrite of Genghis Khan. What is the worst problem with the article at this revision, and why? Please reference relevant policies or guidelines. I am asking this question to candidates whose ability to evaluate/write content I am not immediately convinced by. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my ability to write content can be assessed through the content work that I've highlighted in my statement and on my user page (I've also written congressional office lottery, which has not gone on the Main Page yet). In addition, my ability to evaluate content can be assessed through my thorough and comprehensive content reviews at Dear White Staffers, Lisette Olivera, Grant Hermanns, Daniel Larsen, and Skyrush. All of them involved reviewing all the sources present for accuracy and text-to-source integrity.
Where in the world are you based? BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I do not feel that this is directly relevant to my candidacy for the Committee, I respectfully decline to answer the question.
Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that. As an administrator, I frequent assess speedy deletions and deal with pages that were either not written in English or written in English, but by a writer whose first language is not English (see also my answer to theleekycauldron). We also had four related findings of fact passed in the recent World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case, as well as a failed source language restriction. I would also point to my substantially expansion of Raed Ahmed, an article about a weightlifter who represented Iraq at the 1996 Olympics.

Cabayi

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.

This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Availability of time is seldom my limiting factor. For hard tasks I usually step back and try to rethink it from a different angle. There's usually an "easier" line of attack. For example, in our current discussion, Marshall McLuhan may be my key for examining it. Cabayi (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule we deliberate on-wiki evidence in public and off-wiki evidence in private. Confidential information (gathered as ArbCom, checkuser, oversight, or functionary) should be kept confidential even when the outcome is a block or a desysop. Doxxing is not something I'd want to see from ArbCom. ArbCom owes a good verdict for the good of the project. It doesn't owe a satisfying end to a story. Was there something you found deficient in the resolution to that case? Cabayi (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid too leading a question, but if you'd like a more specific one: ArbCom's initial action in the case was to compel self-disclosure of the shared IPs, but to take no action regarding the meatpuppetry. The community only became aware of the issue because I chose to then take it to AN, which referred it back to ArbCom, which then was on the verge of accepting a case when both admins resigned. Do you feel that ArbCom handled my initial private report appropriately? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's not unknown for two individuals to have common interests and a shared world-view. Even two admins. You were not the first person to make the connection. Public disclosure was this committee's attempt to ensure you were the last to do so with a sense of discovering of something concealed. Obviously, the situation did not resolve as we and they hoped & anticipated. Cabayi (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the composition of next year's committee Eek, the loss of the Arb herder Izno will leave a large gap in getting Arbitrators to attend to the outstanding tasks. I will continue to comment early when I see things clearly, and to wait for wiser eyes than mine when I don't. The committee's geographical distribution will probably continue to mean I'm either among the early comments, or the issue will be settled by the time I see it. Cabayi (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That case was not brought on-wiki which put ArbCom in the position of stepping in as the "filing party" for the record. A more "involved" example would be the Lourdes case request filed by an arbitrator who recused. Arbitrators are still community members with all that entails, only needing to maintain a visible disinterest in the cases they handle. Cabayi (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 09:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have struggled with this issue. We have three flavours of response - caution, warning and admonishment - which vary only in the tone of stern voice and level of finger wagging. Then a large gap to the major sanction of desysop. Anything we have been able to conjure up that could fill that gap would also undermine the admin's credibility needed to perform the admin role effectively and authoritatively. It's a conundrum. If you have ideas for ArbCom I can promise you 15 eager recipients regardless of whether I am still in that number. Cabayi (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knoew I'd said as much before WereSpielChequers. Here it is - Special:Diff/1180079265. Cabayi (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached by this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 09:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past" - there has. From my perspective, the WMF are now more aware that they need to act with, and in support of, the community structures such as ArbCom rather than undermining or bypassing them. ArbCom are more aware of the need to keep a tidy house (for want of a better metaphor).
"there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force" - (according to the sales pitch) The UCoC was crafted to encapsulate the basics of good behaviour as defined in enwiki's policies and apply them across all WMF's projects. As such enwiki is the project least likely to need recourse to UCoC remedies. Our own home-grown policies should have tried-and-trusted pathways to resolve relevant issues.
To your Elbonian issues...
The RFA, its conduct, considering the legitimacy of votes cast, considering whether votes were solicited on the Elbonian wiki, and discerning the RFA'a outcome are in the care of the crats such as yourself.
On the evidence presented, as an arbitrator, I'd be voting to decline the case requests as there is no evidence of any prior attempts at dispute resolution. I'll assume for the purposes of the question that the proper pre-arbitration steps have been taken.
You don't specify whether the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage was reverted or self-reverted. It's not a desysop issue unless the longstanding admin refuses to see any problem with their action. As the case has presumably been discussed on the longstanding admin's user talk page and at WP:AN prior to the case request we may be looking at an admin who has lost touch with community expectations of how their tools are to be used.
Absent any specifics I'm unsure whether our new young admin is being doxxed (oversight action perhaps leading to an oversight bloc of the doxxer) or where it's a plain old personal attack which is best handled as an admin action (perhaps by an arbitrator).
Having disposed of the issues under enwiki policy, I don't see a need to dip into the Universal Code of Conduct toolbox for remedies.
FWIW, I have on one occasion privately suggested a remedy under UCoC. As in the examples you present, the issue got resolved through more customary means. Cabayi (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From an arbitration perspective, it looks like a reasonable discussion of the matter in hand with no user conduct issues to trouble me.
As an editor I feel that the article on Mozart should look like a Wikipedia article, not its own special creation. Memories of ~~past~~ ancient discussions about succession boxes with Pigsonthewing lead me to guess there may be microformat benefits to infoboxes which improve the article's usefulness. Cabayi (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I find on the first page of an article that Wikipedia has 4 million registered users, and {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} says 48,313,089, I doubt the rigour of the piece.
It put me in mind of an anecdote in Mark McCormack's book What They Don't Teach You at Harvard Business School^[1] in which an employee was fired despite being "right" in a dispute with his boss. The point is that ArbCom's role is to uphold the process, not to uphold either party to the dispute. It's possible, maybe even probable, that long-tenured users will have a better grasp of how to behave.
If you've been following the recent, regrettably necessary announcement on WP:ACN you'll have noted that long tenure and social capital do not have the impact claimed. Cabayi (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the World War II and history of Jews in Poland case, you opposed a site ban for Volunteer Marek, on the grounds that "a site ban is premature", albeit "by nowhere near as wide a margin as VM would hope". I have two questions regarding this vote: (1) What would have been enough in this case to warrant a site ban, given Wugapodes' rationale laying out years of misconduct, including after previous topic and interaction bans? (2) Are you concerned that votes like this might send a message that some editors, particularly long-term editors with many friends, are treated differently than other editors? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. If TBANs and IBANs can keep VM from further conflict, why go for a CBAN? There was a route out of the situation which kept VM as a productive editor. What do you think would have been gained by moving straight to a site ban? Cabayi (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Friendships did not enter into my thinking. Nor did it when I blocked a user for LOUTSOCKing and got reverted by community consensus. Cabayi (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the previous question cites Wugapodes’s rationale, I’m interested in your answer to this along with that: Excluding Wugapodes’s conclusion that the evidence was enough to merit a site ban, do you disagree with Wugapodes’s analysis in any meaningful way and why? —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful way, no. But there seemed to be a way forward which was more productive than a site ban. That's why I opposed "by nowhere near as wide a margin as VM would hope". Cabayi (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worst? I could give you harsh, where we've stripped privileges from good people as a necessary act in maintaining community confidence that advanced tools were only being used in accordance with policy. I could give you unresolved, where we've handled a matter but have a low confidence that it won't come back for further attention. Ranking from best to worst isn't a view I've considered, nor is it a view that will help future considerations. Cabayi (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom has a portfolio of tasks. User appeals, ARCA, case requests & cases, liaison with T&S... I would not pick a single task that needs to be elevated over the others. Nor would I pick a single way of being an arbitrator as being superior to another. We have arbs who are good at shepherding our workload (and shepherding arbitrators), who have incredible experience at oversight, who handle appeals in a particular way that the other arbs find helpful, who have a deep knowledge of ARBPOL and processes, who can bring insight into the renaming process, who have deep institutional memory. It's the blend that makes ArbCom work. Cabayi (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Active. Cabayi (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some more analysis of the effect on the Portuguese wiki before committing to it, but I'm leaning towards the idea. From a functionary perspective it would eliminate the need for oversighters to suppress the IPs of editors who forget to log in before editing, and it would reduce (the already small opportunity) for checkusers to accidentally link IPs to users. Cabayi (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There I many topics I would never consider writing about myself but would be troubled about if they were written about poorly or vandalised. I recently bought a copy of Willo the Wisp for the nostalgia value & have a Foghorn Leghorn stuffed toy staring at me right now, so it's not as if I could claim to be above kids TV. Kids TV (and nostalgia for it) has its place. Fighting vandalism is separate from the article's topic matter. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't be specific without knowing which element of WP:CONEXCEPT you have in mind.
Legal - I generally go with the notion "Why have a dog and bark yourself". If the lawyers tell us something is legally required, I'll listen. Having heard their reports to ArbCom on the legal actions in which they are involved on our behalf; having seen some of their handling of issues which head their way through VRTS tickets; believe me, Legal are the good guys. The explanations they give to ArbCom, which they can't give in public, about cases which the community are generally unaware, are always informative and reassuring to hear.

Office actions - Your question's scenario suggests that this point and WP:FRAMBAN are at the root of your question. For the first two or three meetings with the WMF which I attended I mentioned Fram. I am convinced they know they shouldn't have bypassed or undermined ArbCom and the project's other mechanisms, and that they should work with, not around, the processes in place.

ArbCom decisions - An ArbCom vs community scenario. Not a pretty prospect. If the community don't like a decision they can vote in a new set of arbitrators at the next election and ask the new committee to reconsider.

The fourth CONEXCEPT criterion is outside ArbCom's remit. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The permissions are based on access to non-public information. The community would need to be able to monitor the use of the non-public information. Unless all 48,313,089 registered users are going to sign the NDA the task will need to be delegated to a group of users. A group of users who the community routinely reassesses and re-selects. A group that would look a lot like the Arbitration committee in fact. I could see a case for two parallel ArbComs, one for functionary permissions and one for the other tasks. I can see a bigger case against. Cabayi (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have served previously on the Arbitration Committee. How would you respond to concerns that not enough new blood is injected into the committee, and how if at all do you think a high proportion of former arbs in the new tranche would affect ArbCom? Fermiboson (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With just 10 candidates for 8 seats I'd rather see more blood, old or new. Former arbs bring institutional memory. New arbs bring new viewpoints. A mix is good. A wide range of different experience enriches our discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At what point does WP:STONEWALLING escalate beyond just a content dispute into disruptive behavior that is appropriate for ANI or AE to act on? Sennalen (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the point at which it has become objectionable to a number of editors. Intransigence and an unwillingness to engage in dialog are often the triggers. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So much of it rang true that I'm finding it hard to find a point with which I disagree. Perhaps you're harsh on those of our colleagues who identify as lizard people?
You state that "Nobody knows the difference between a reminder, warning, and an admonishment". I have a recollection that last year we drew a parallel between those three words and levels 2, 3, and 4 of the user warnings. Since, as a committee, we have no hesitation on skipping steps or moving straight to blocks and bans, it's probably a meaningless distinction. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently finished a rewrite of Genghis Khan. What is the worst problem with the article at this revision, and why? Please reference relevant policies or guidelines. I am asking this question to candidates whose ability to evaluate/write content I am not immediately convinced by.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an election for arbitrators, not content creators. The boilerplate answer you'd get from arbitration is:
Thank you for your email. The Arbitration Committee primarily looks after user conduct issues and are therefore unable to help you in this instance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration) You are welcome to edit the talk page of the article in question to raise your issue there.

I know it's not the answer you want, but the task is irrelevant to the role. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You voted in the recent Arbcom motion which removed another arbitrator. Without commenting on the merits of the action itself (which, as far as I can see, other arbs have already done to the extent confidentiality allows them to), what are your thoughts on 1. the timing of the action as being so close to the election, in particular the action itself being announced less than 24 hours before the start of the election, and 2. additional concerns raised by the complete lack of transparency and prewarning before the drastic (and as far as I can tell, unprecedented) measure? If you or the clerks consider this two questions, I would prefer you answer 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermiboson (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The timing isn't ideal for the two of us standing for re-election. In the internal considerations nobody at any point suggested we hold off for a more convenient time. We handle the issues that come to the committee as they arrive, whether convenient or not.
prewarning: Beeblebrox was aware that the matter was being discussed and was aware of what the issue was.
lack of transparency: To state the obvious, you're electing a committee to handle private evidence in private and to keep matters confidential. It's the job description.
As I stated in a previous answer, "ArbCom owes a good verdict for the good of the project. It doesn't owe a satisfying end to a story." Cabayi (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the world are you based? BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Europe.
Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, and am a truly grateful recipient of other people's proficiency with English when I travel abroad.
I'm inclined to slap a {{cn}} on "most trustworthy of all wikipedias". The English Wikipedia, being the most prominent project, is consequently the battleground of choice for many conflicts. Its reliability comes from having most eyeballs.
As you say NPOV may have a cultural element. Measles, along with rubella, chickenpox and mumps were standard childhood diseases in Europe. Elsewhere in the world they were mass killers. Prevention is a laudable & NPOV aim regardless of location. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent 10 unsuccessful minutes trying to find the meaning of VRTS in the above answers. Could you tell me what it means please? Kelly222 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Kelly222, I should have linked it. WP:VRTS is the system for handling emails to Wikipedia. Cabayi (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support maximizing independence from WM. I read WP:DENY which openly identifies itself as an essay (with POV), not policy. Please clarify what you don't like about it: the moralistic tone? the presumptuous psychology reminiscent of Criminal Minds profiling? or the process of accusation and appeal, the latter clearly noted in your statement? Martindo (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Martindo, I've moved your question. I agree wholeheartedly with WP:DENY's objective of not feeding the trolls. My problem is with the extra work it creates for admins handling appeals and for users who spot obvious socks but then have difficulty linking them to their ultimate sockmasters. DENY is being applied more widely than is useful. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ McCormack, Mark H. (1994). What they don't teach you at Harvard Business School. London: HarperCollins. p. 87. ISBN 9780006369530.

Robert McClenon

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.

Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I understand the question. It appears to say that the English Wikipedia should avoid taking either an Anglophone-centric point of view or a US-centric point of view. If so, I agree, in particular that a US-centric point of view should be avoided. There are tags that are used to indicate that articles do not take an adequately global view of their subjects. Climate is a different type of topic in terms of worldwide coverage than measles or cars. Climate should be mostly discussed at the regional and national levels. Measles and automobiles should be covered largely on a worldwide basis with attention to regional and national aspects, such as what the incidence of the disease is in different countries, and what countries manufacture vehicles and how extensive their ownership is by countries.
This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't give any one example, but following through on duty or commitments isn't illustrated by one example. I will point to two general illustrations. The first is the numerous long-running cases that I have mediated at DRN, some of which were tedious for various reasons, mostly having to do with the editors. The Italian political parties case and the Indian languages case were two of the longest. The second illustration is my record of user contributions, which will show that there are only rarely gaps in my editing.
Please talk about your status as a non-admin who has not been previously vetted by the community. What qualities do you have to be the first non-admin elected to ArbCom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am asking the community to vet me by electing me to a term on the ArbCom, but you knew that. A quality that I am bringing is extensive experience in resolving content disputes, and I think that I know what sort of conduct complicates the resolution of content disputes. Also, I think that ArbCom would benefit from having an arbitrator who has not been an admin, because they might take a different perspective on cases of alleged admin abuse. I will continue this answer with my answer to the next question.
How do you think not being an administrator will affect your work on ArbCom? QuicoleJR (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that ArbCom will benefit from having an arbitrator who has not been an admin, in particular in cases of alleged admin abuse. I don't think that ArbCom should usually wait to hear from the accused admin before deciding whether a case should be accepted, at least if the case is strong. If there is a strong case, ArbCom should accept the case for hearing to hear the admin as well as any accuser. I will comment that most claims of admin abuse are bunk, although most of the worthless cases against admins are not filed as ArbCom case requests.
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom cases in which non-public information is used always pose a difficult question of the balance between transparency and privacy. I found that particular case especially troublesome because, as I said at the time, it was not clear to the community what the case was about. It appears to have been about two editors who cohabit, and one of them is a seldom-active admin. I am still not satisfied with the resolution of that case. In general, ArbCom should maintain the maximum transparency that is consistent with privacy. When possible, cases should be based on public information, and action based on private information should not be in public cases. That particular case was annoying because there was just enough public information for the case to provoke interest without satisfying it.
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is as much a statement as a question, or a question of the form "Are you ready for a lot of work on private matters?" I had known in the past that arbitrators had said that they had an excessive volume of work on private matters, and now I know that there is still a lot of such work. The answer is that I am ready for a lot of work on private matters that will be handled by email. There is more work than can be seen by the public.
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think that ArbCom should occasionally take a case on its own motion. Second, the case that you mention was unusual, because it was the response to a partisan journal article, and I think that ArbCom was right in accepting it. Third, ArbCom should occasionally accept a case when a dispute at WP:ANI has become a great monster with tentacles without waiting for an editor to file a case request. An example of such a case, which ArbCom did accept, was the case involving behavior in deletion discussions.
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 09:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that sometimes in admin cases there is discussion of some intermediate action between admonition and desysopping, and that often it is concluded that there probably is no feasible intermediate restriction. In cases where an admin and another editor have a bad history, an interaction ban can be considered, just as if neither editor as an admin. I think that ArbCom should always consider whether such an intermediate action exists, and in marginal admin cases, ArbCom should either have a workshop phase to ask the community for ideas, or some comparable request for ideas.
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached by this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 09:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reread the Universal Code of Conduct. The UCOC is largely about civility, which is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and mostly states principles that are also the principles of the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The hypothetical case in point is largely about cross-wiki conduct. The ArbCom should coordinate with the U4C and stewards to ensure that the English Wikipedia is seen by the U4C as governing itself effectively, so that the U4C does not intervene. The question was what parts of the UCOC have been breached. It isn't obvious from the description what parts of the UCOC have been broken, either in a contentious RFA or in other matters, but there has probably be incivility, and maybe harassment. There are competence issues, both in the English Wikipedia and the Elbonian Wikipedia; only the English Wikipedia issues concern the ArbCom. There is a competence issue about at least one English administrator. ArbCom should open at least one case, both about any questioned administrators, and to demonstrate to the U4C that the English Wikipedia is governing itself and does not need to be governed by the U4C. The twelve-year-old admin is an interesting issue. I could not find a rule against a twelve-year-old admin. Many web communities have a minimum age of thirteen, but it appears that we do not. There was either a serious breach of policy in doxing the admin as to her age, or she made a serious error in judgment in saying that she is in sixth grade.
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the RFC tells me is that there are a vocal minority of editors who apparently dislike all infoboxes and oppose all infoboxes. At the same time, nearly all of the other editors who participated support infoboxes, at least for major composers.Infobox cases continue to divide the community, which is illustrated by the opposition of some editors to an infobox for one of the greatest classical composers. The RFC does not show evidence of disruptive editing, but I haven't read the prior talk page discussion, and I know that some opponents of infoboxes have edited disruptively, and it was primarily the opponents of infoboxes whose behavior made sanctions necessary. I have ~~two~~three thoughts about further action to reduce infobox wars. First, any WikiProject, including WP:WikiProject Classical Music, can adopt a guideline that an infobox is the norm for C-Class articles. Second, if specific editors are problematic, the contentious topics procedure can be used to topic-ban them from infobox discussions. In general, ~~it is the anti-infobox editors who are difficult~~there are a few difficult editors, some opposing infoboxes, and some supporting them, and existing remedies are available. Third, the guidelines on infoboxes should be revisited de novo. Also, fourth, music disputes are too common in both the areas of popular music and classical music, probably because the editors are passionate about their love of the music. Maybe editors should listen to music when angry rather than editing when angry. Fifth, as part of the de novo review of the guidelines on infoboxes, WikiProjects should be encouraged to establish guidelines for when infoboxes are in order for articles in their areas, to minimize the need for RFCs. Sixth,ArbCom should be willing to review the history of editors with long block logs who have been involved in infobox wars. Infobox disputes continue to divide the community. Disputes are not just cases that go to WP:ANI, Arbitration Enforcement, or Requests for Arbitration. Disputes include any question that has to be resolved by RFC rather than by discussion alone. The divisiveness of infobox cases is shown by the opposition of some editors to an infobox for one of the greatest classical composers. The RFC does not show evidence of disruptive editing or incivility, but I haven't read the prior talk page discussion. I know that some opponents of infoboxes have edited disruptively, and it was primarily but not entirely the opponents of infoboxes whose behavior made sanctions necessary. I have six thoughts about further action to reduce infobox wars. First, any WikiProject, including WP:WikiProject Classical Music should be encouraged to adopt a guideline that an infobox is the norm for C-Class articles. Second, if specific editors are problematic, the contentious topics procedure should be used to topic-ban them from infobox discussion. In general, there are a few difficult editors, some opposing infoboxes, and some supporting them, and existing remedies are available. Third, the guidelines on infoboxes should be revisited de novo. Fourth, music disputes are too common in both the areas of popular music and classical music, probably because the editors are passionate about their love of the music. Maybe editors should listen to music when angry rather than editing when angry. Fifth, as part of the de novo review of the guidelines on infoboxes, WikiProjects should be encouraged to establish guidelines for when infoboxes are in order for articles in their areas, to minimize the need for RFCs. Sixth, ArbCom should be willing to review the history of editors with long block logs who have been involved in infobox wars.
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have ~~not~~ read the papers, and will ~~read them, and~~ comment ~~afterwards~~. I think that the question has two parts. The first may be whether I agree with the papers, and the second may be what I think should be done to address the findings of the papers. I don't disagree with the findings of the papers, so the question is what should be done to address the findings. The journal paper quoted one interviewee as saying that ArbCom "operates on the basis of what is best for the encyclopedia and it does not consider legal principles". That is in fact what it should do. ArbCom cases that involve content (as opposed to admin cases) are mostly about disagreements about neutral pont of view, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia. What ArbCom needs to focus on is ensuring that the consensus editing process maintains neutral point of view, which has to be done by sanctioning editors who disrupt consensus editing. The journal paper is mostly about social capital, which relates to what is known in Wikipedia as the problem of unblockable editors. The ArbCom needs to be aware that unblockable editors, that is, editors with high social capital who disregard civility, interfere with neutral point of view. ArbCom should cancel disputes, but should do so in a way that improves neutral point of view.
You seem to handle most, if not all, of the cases at DRN. Do you intend to stop doing so if elected an arbitrator? If yes, do you have an idea of who might be able to step in at DRN, or are you willing to train people? If no, are you concerned that your role at DRN might require you to recuse yourself from many cases at ArbCom? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not I am elected, more volunteers are needed at DRN. If elected, I will try to recruit and orient more volunteers. The point about recusal as an arbitrator is well taken. As a mediator, it is always one of the objectives to avoid having the case go first to WP:ANI and then to arbitration; but I am aware that I would have to recuse as an arbitrator if I had mediated the dispute.
Your statements at WP:ARC have long struck me as more useful as a comment of a sitting arb than as a member of the community, except for one thing. The comments not only seem independently arrived at (good! every arb should think for themselves and exercise their judgement) but also completely independent of any conversation/discussion arbs have already had, not really addressing ideas or thoughts raised by arbs (for instance long accept/decline rationales after that position already has a majority of Arbs voting that way). If elected, how would or wouldn't your statements change? Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My statements on ArbCom case requests are intended to offer another opinion or viewpoint as to whether the arbitrators should accept a case and what its scope should be. If I am elected, I expect that I will still make similar statements, because they will be directed to the other arbitrators, and because the discussion of acceptance or non-acceptance should be as transparent for the community as possible.
In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading the cases that the ArbCom has handled in 2021 through 2023 (I added 2021), I do not see any final decision that I consider a mistake. A decision with which I disagreed was the decision not to establish discretionary sanctions for disruption in deletion discussions in 2021 in the deletion discussions case, and then the decision not to consider defining deletion discussions as a contentious topic in the Smallcat case, which was another case about disruption of deletion discussions. I don't consider those to be mistakes so much as differences of opinion. Similarly, I disagreed with the failure to impose discretionary sanctions for tropical storms. I also disagreed with the delay in accepting some of the administrator conduct cases, but thought that the final result, a delayed desysop, was reasonable.
In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any quick answers to that question, but I would like to see ArbCom accept more cases that are not administrator conduct issues, because they are editor conduct issues that prevent the resolution of content disputes.
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is one most important type of editor. Wikipedia needs, and has, a variety of types of editors, including content creators, copy-editors, and different types of gnomes. The idea that some types of editors are better than others contributes to unnecessary friction in the English Wikipedia, and is one of the main reasons why RFA is a toxic process. The idea that there is one most important type of editor is unfortunate.
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that this question is the same as whether to disallow editing with only an IP address. Disallowing unregistered editing is a perennial proposal, and so is probably more likely to be discussed than to be implemented. However, if there were an RFC to disallow IP editing, I would support it weakly. Unregistered editing is a solution in search of a problem. There is no need for it, when registered editing can be pseudonymous, and there is no requirement to provide a true name. Some unregistered editors think that IP editing is the way to preserve their privacy, which is better preserved by pseudonymous editing. The disadvantage of IP editing is that IP addresses are not static. They shift because they are managed by ISPs. This makes dialogue on talk pages difficult because a human may have shifting addresses. So it would be a good idea to require (rather than encourage) registration, although it is unlikely to be done.
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I don't understand the question or the context. Of course we should care if any article is vandalized. The vandalism should not come to the attention of ArbCom, because administrators should block the vandals, and administrators and the community should restore the verifiable article. Of course we should oppose any vandalism.
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general, in such a case, ArbCom should support the English Wikipedia's right to govern itself. ArbCom should not sanction editors on either side if, as appears to be true in the hypothetical case, both sides were acting in good faith. There has been a precursor case, which was the Fram case, in which ArbCom, in my view, acted appropriately in representing the English Wikipedia as self-governing.
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see community control of Checkuser and Oversighter appointments as related to RFA reform. I see community control of Checkuser and Oversighter appointments as possibly being done via WP:RFFA, WP:Request for Functionary Appointment, a process similar to RFA or RFB. We should find some way to make RFA less hostile, and I am not sure what that way is, and then provide a similar process for the appointment of Checkusers and Oversighters.
As a follow up to my previous question, do you intend to continue mediating at DRN if elected an arbitrator, or do you intend to take a step back from the front lines and move into a training role? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If elected, I will step back from active work at DRN, both so that it is not taking up time that I would owe to do ArbCom work, and because of the possibility that the dispute could go to arbitration and I would have to recurse.
In reading your answers above, I was struck by your view (which you've expressed before) that I don't think that ArbCom should usually wait to hear from the accused admin before deciding whether a case should be accepted, at least if the case is strong. Several arbitrators and other editors have previously opined that ArbCom sometimes waits too long to open this type of case, especially if it appears the admin is deliberately not responding; but your view seems to be that the admin need not be afforded any reasonable time to respond at all. In my experience, allowing "the accused admin" (like anyone else who is the subject of a case request) a fair opportunity to respond often results in useful feedback, ranging from an explanation of or relevant context for the disputed action, to a commitment not to repeat the contested action, or sometimes a resignation that moots the need for a case. It also allows time for other community members with relevant information or viewpoints to weigh in, as you yourself have done frequently. Would you please further explain or clarify your thinking on this point? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my complaints about waiting for a statement from the admin have been a little stronger than I intended. I have probably been the most outspoken in criticizing the ArbCom for waiting a long time to open a case when it appeared that the administrator was being evasive. I have thought about the issue of the timing of the opening of admin cases in response to this question, and have a few thoughts. First, a few cases of admin conduct are so blatant if properly stated that the opportunity to explain or resign should be within the framework of the case. However, I recognize that other cases are less obvious, and that I may have seemed to be calling for a rush to justice. I meant to be calling for the ArbCom to demand a timely response. Second, since these admin cases unfortunately recur, ArbCom should have a semi-standard framework for dealing with them. ArbCom should have a time threshold for how long to wait for an explanation, maybe three or four days. Third, I had not been thinking about the work that is done by the arbs and clerks in opening a case. So maybe there should be an intermediate status for cases such as Pending to give the admin a signal that they really need to provide a statement. My main concern has been that simply waiting for an explanation from the admin looks, to some editors in the community, like the admins on the ArbCom are allowing admins to evade accountability. So I think it is important for the ArbCom to be seen as requiring accountability, possibly by requiring a response within a specified number of days. By the way, I am satisfied with the outcome of the cases in which I criticized the ArbCom for being slow to act.
You may have a unique perspective on this, given your work in dispute resolution: At what point does WP:STONEWALLING escalate beyond just a content dispute into disruptive behavior that is appropriate for ANI or AE to act on? Sennalen (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that, when content disputes cannot be resolved by discussion and compromise, they should be resolved by RFC. Stonewalling is conduct which prevents or tries to prevent the development of an RFC, such as by frivolous arguing over efforts to word the RFC, et cetera. If an editor tries to prevent the RFC from going forward, that is disruption, and, as you say, should be reported to WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement.
My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of this question is interesting, because it asks what I disagree with. There are two ways to interpret this question. First, what do I think is incorrect as a description of how arbitration works? Second, what do I think is incorrect as a description of how arbitration should work? I am not going to disagree as to how it works. So the question is what do I disagree with about how it should work. This question is similar to the question about the journal paper. I agree that ArbCom does not (usually) follow legal rules, and should not try too hard to follow legal rules. ArbCom should focus on ensuring that neutral point of view can be maintained. The Arbitration Guide doesn't mention neutral point of view, and the fact that it doesn't is more a criticism of the arbitration process than of the guide.
I have recently finished a rewrite of Genghis Khan. What is the worst problem with the article at this revision, and why? Please reference relevant policies or guidelines. I am asking this question to candidates whose ability to evaluate/write content I am not immediately convinced by. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have made a lot of improvements to the article. I don't see any obvious problems with the article, and will take another more detailed look within a week.
Why did you think it was appropriate for you to (offer to) reclose the Required disclosure for admin paid advising RFC after having expressed support for the original close that was overturned with near unanimous consensus?
Oops. Ugh. That was a mistake on my part. Thank you for calling my attention to that mistake. I was trying too hard to respond to a request to close the case that I shouldn't have considered.

Wugapodes

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.

This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far in 2023 we've heard 5 cases; I've voted in all 5 and drafted 2 of them. In 2022 we heard 5 full cases (and two more disposed by motion); I voted in 3 of the 5 full cases and drafted 2. I can't find the stats easily, so you'll have to take my word on it, but we've also had a good record of meeting or beating deadlines for posting proposed decisions. Of course we do more than just public cases; my point is that I work hard to make myself available for committee business and one place that shows is my good case participation as a member and drafter.
Part of why a 15(-ish) member committee is useful is because it allows us to wax and wane in our activity, but the issue we had been facing is that too many of us waned at the same time. This puts a strain on the remaining arbs, and often leads to the loss of voices or opinions that would be helpful in coming to a reasoned decision. This problem isn't lost on me, so I work hard to make myself available in "all-hands" situations even at my busiest. For example, a few months ago my father had a stroke (he's recovered) and I notified the Committee and clerks saying I'll remain nominally active, but outside CU/OS [appointments] and the PD [CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin when it still looked like we would have a case] (assuming it's done before I'm active again) don't wait on me for input. And I stuck to that even while traveling across the country to deal with a family health emergency: in the week following that email I provided (internally) input on the pending case, responded to questions regarding the CUOS process, and provided feedback on drafts. I didn't do much else, but I had committed to helping with the CUOS process and a case is a clear "all-hands" situation. With the little free time I had, I completing the work I had committed to in the moments I would otherwise be on BlueSky or Twitter.
In meatspace, I'm a PhD candidate studying language variation and change, and if there's one thing that exemplifies "doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard" it's research and writing! Very often I've had to pass up on social events because I needed to make a deadline. Just last week, a friend came over and while we were hanging out I was on my laptop writing intermittently because I was two days behind on getting a draft to my committee (but I had promised him we'd hang out). I do the same thing for my work on the Arbitration Committee too. I agreed to take on this work for the community, and sometimes that means skipping out on weekly bar nights because I spent all day writing a paper and won't have any other time to work on a proposed decision. Would I rather be out drinking with friends? Of course, but service work is rarely the easiest or most fun task on the to-do list. — Wug·a·po·des 02:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing a question someone asked to Maxim above, your recent RFB was opposed because people wanted to separate the powers of ArbCom members and the bureaucrats. What are your thoughts on this? QuicoleJR (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's too simplistic a read of the consensus in that discussion. If you read my nomination statement in that RfB, I was proposing a rather unusual way in which I would approach the Bureaucrat position if granted, namely an expansion of the traditional role of crats in ensuring decorum at RfA. The discussion was in part whether the community wanted to grant tools knowing how I would use them. There were a number of editors who opposed simply on the grounds that they disagreed with my approach, and the other class of opposes---the "separation of powers" rationales---need to be understood in that context. It wasn't only that a promotion would mean an additional arb-crat, it was a statement on a specific arb-crat and vision for the crat position. Now of course there are some who do see a general problem with arb-crats, but a number of editors were more nuanced in how they saw the problem as the intersection of my proposal with the role of an arb-crat (Wizardman's rational was influential in this regard) not merely arb-crats generally. So I don't think it is accurate to generalize the statement that "people wanted to separate powers of ArbCom members and the bureaucrats" given the diversity of "separation of powers" comments and the context of my nomination. The community generally seems fine with arb-crats, and I don't think my RfB is a good example to the contrary. — Wug·a·po·des 06:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The committee is generally very transparent regarding the outcomes of private inquiries, especially as they relate to admins and functionaries. Because of our legal obligations under our NDAs, there are practical limits to how candid we can be. In the situation you reference, the initial private request we received was on a narrow question pursuant to language at SPI. The resolution of that request is what allowed you to discuss your broader issues in public, as you said in the relevant AN OP I thank ArbCom for prompting this on-wiki disclosure, as it now means that the community can discuss this pattern of misconduct in the open. Because of the privacy concerns at issue, sending out a news blast on ACN to be copied to some of the most visible pages on the project did not seem like the most prudent decision, but relevant parties were notified of the outcome so that they can (and did) handle the public matters openly. Generally I think we strike a good balance between concerns for privacy and the need for transparency so that the community can handle affairs on its own. — Wug·a·po·des 20:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope to mitigate much of the repetitive work as mentioned in my nomination statement. For the rest, I generally rely on teamwork. I don't need to take the lead on every initiative or request, and by spreading out who takes point it mitigates burn out. For example, when a CU check is needed, I'm rarely the one who does it, but if I seem to be the first to a ticket and have the time, I've taken it on. There are a number of email filters I use to organize and triage correspondence which helps manage the workload. I try to avoid sending multiple emails to the same thread unless something has materially changed; one thoughtful email saves everyone time compared to multiple off-the-cuff emails. — Wug·a·po·des 20:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the Holocaust in Poland case, you were one of the drafting Arbitrators. On one of the case pages, you wrote: Sadly I don't have so much liberty. No, I'm resigned to sitting here stoically, my eyes held open, forced to read the same arguments over and over again for two months, unflinching. Anything less and I get called insanely biased or told to watch my tone. I should watch A Clockwork Orange, describing what it was like to deal with one of the editors active in the case ([1]). Given that you felt that way, are you sure that it's in your best interest to seek two more years of that? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it's fair to say that the Holocaust in Poland case is a representative example of the work arbitrators do, so saying I'm signing upfor two more years of that isn't accurate. Arbitration cases are stressful for everyone (in different ways), and that case particularly so. Given the issues at play we attempted a new structure for the evidence phase that turned out to be an extraordinary burden on arbitrator time and energy. The arbitrators alone compiled some 200kB of summary with a bibliography over 100 entries long and a quarter of which weren't even in English. Adequately investigating the claims meant we (I) had to go to my library to check out sources and use machine translation to get the gist of what these non-English sources were about. After weeks of that, seeing people say the same things over and over again, is frustrating to say the least.
And I think that's understandable; I am also a human. It provides a lens into how I advocate for handling most issues that come before us. For example, an administrator at RFPP or a volunteer at UTRS may deal with the same kinds of inquiries day after day and provide the same responses day after day. Losing sight of the larger picture, they may drop their facade and be more candid than cordial. Assuming it's not something egregious, just a voicing of frustration, the response is for others to step in and help their colleague deal with the burnout. I was fortunate enough to have colleagues who recognized that and stepped up to help. At the end of that case I marked myself inactive for about 6 weeks, and I took a break confident that my colleagues could handle things in my absence.
Any job looks bad at its worst, but a job is more than its worst moments. I'm willing to serve two more years because the bulk of the work is rewarding and even at its worst my colleagues are supportive which makes the whole job worthwhile. — Wug·a·po·des 20:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a useful tool but one that should be used rarely. It's not the first time, even in that topic area, that the Committee has opened a case that wasn't brought by the community. For example, the original Eastern-European mailing list case was opened by a motion of the Arbitration Committee without a formal request from the community. In the case you mention, an aspect in favor of a committee-initiated case was that we had received community concerns, but when directed to file publicly no one ever did. For example, you can see in the Committee's statement that private requests were received, told to be posted publicly, and then sent to T&S who deferred to the need for a public case. We could, of course, let the issue continue being an issue until the whole situation gets so bad that T&S did decide to go around us, or we could use our community-ratified jurisdiction to open the case ourselves. It's not a tool to be used often, but when a topic area is known to be a problem, we are receiving reports, T&S is receiving reports, but no one is willing to actually do the paperwork to have a case, then it is a tool worth considering. — Wug·a·po·des 21:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?Ϣere SpielChequers 09:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the last two years, I've slowly come to the conclusion that if an administrator is brought before the Committee and needs a formal restriction, then a desysop is probably appropriate. I'm not at the point where I can say that's always the case, but I am at the point where I am looking for an exception to the rule rather than evidence for the rule. It's a harsh conclusion, but I think it's a reflection of the Committee's place in the broader scheme of disciplinary procedures. If the community thought an administrator should have a topic ban but keep their tools...the community can just do that. And we have. I advocated quite stridently to impose a topic ban on an administrator in 2021 at ANI. By the time most of these issues reach the Committee, however, the community tends to have not found consensus for a topic ban or other remedy. At that point the issue seems to be one of trust with the tools, not any particular domain, and a topic ban (for example) can't fix that.
Of course, this is in tension with the position I've advocated frequently: ArbCom should tend towards taking rather than rejecting admin cases. I'm still thinking through how to resolve the two, but partly I think it's an issue of how the community wants to handle administrator conduct. If the community wants to handle administrator misconduct with topic bans, then the community should not close AN(I) discussions early and instead work to build consensus on a restriction. If, on the other hand, the community wants to use desysop and RfA more frequently, then issues should be brought to the committee early. Frankly I don't think the committee is well placed to craft bespoke restrictions on administrators which the community then needs to monitor and respond to. If that level of oversight is desired, I think it's better handled at the community level rather than ArbCom, and it's why I would prefer other methods of dispute resolution be exhausted, even if that's not a requirement for me to accept an admin conduct case. — Wug·a·po·des 21:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached by this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? Ϣere SpielChequers 09:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting hypothetical, but like most hypotheticals it's a little too impoverished for me to speak definitively. I'll give some impressions, and if you want to give more details in a follow-up I can clarify further.
You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war Odds are low that I'd support this. While we avoid protecting talk pages whenever possible, sometimes it's the only tool for the job. These protections should be brief and only as strong as necessary to prevent the disruption. That it was brief is a good sign, but the full protection is concerning. It would depend on who was disrupting the talk page and to what degree; if there were a lot of extended-confirmed socks or meatpuppets then it might be reasonable. Even if it were too strong, I'd probably lean towards a trouting absent aggravating circumstances like being INVOLVED in the dispute.
we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility Not compelling and probably a UCOC issue. The Elbonian Wikipedia sets its own policies, and we set ours. While we can look to sister projects for guidance, the decision to desysop is based on our policies and as long as the sysop is following our policies I see no reason to yank the tools. More cynically, and again based on what I've seen with political struggles on other projects, I would be worried that there are local political motivations for the desysop on the Elbonian Wikipedia. On other projects where the local community has offline political and ethnic conflict, we've seen crats and sysops attempt to centralize power for their political cause in order to manipulate content shown to readers from their culture. One method for achieving this is the ouster of sysops sympathetic to a particular cause, often for manufactured reasons. (to answer your question directly, see UCOC 3.2) I worry this might be what's going on, but being a hypothetical I would need more evidence before I committed to that analysis or reported up to the meta community. The charge of "senility" is also worrying. Locally, I'd say that's a personal attack, and regarding the UCOC it would probably fall under discrimination based on age or disability (UCOC 3.1).
Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager My first inclination would be to suppress this. It implies that the editor is under 13 which is squarely in the realm of child protection where suppression is a tool of first resort. I'd then start a discussion with the other oversighters and arbitrators on how to proceed. Odds are low that---if the age claim were true---it would be public knowledge. We are generally good at suppressing information relating to the age of minors for reasons and someone under 13 would almost certainly fall into that camp, which makes me think this is probably some form of outing, and probably harassment. As a practical matter though, I sincerely doubt that someone under 13 would pass an RfA in the current climate (this is a good thing). The maturity necessary is substantial even for young adults, and given that it takes 1 to 2 years minimum to prep for an RfA, the editor would have had to have started editing as a third grader at the latest for this timeline to make sense. It's getting very messy very fast, but some options are (1) the admin is a preternatural pre-teen being outed by compatriots (2) the admin is an adult pretending to be a child (3) the accusers are lying to make it seem like 1 or 2 is the case. 2 would probably lead to a ban of some kind for the admin, 1 and 3 would probably lead to sanctions against the accusers, and I'm not sure how would work out for the kid, probably some kind of topic ban but it would be heavily fact dependent.
Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. I'd probably want to have a chat with the crats, especially the closer if it was a unilateral close, and see if this information affects their read of the consensus. If removing those rationales results in a clear pass, then I don't think we need to do much beyond make the crats aware and let them handle it as they see fit. If removing those rationales puts it into the discretionary zone or clear fail, then we would be in a tough situation. This would be pretty fact dependent, but my inclination is to kick it back to the crats. ArbCom passes some motion with a FoF regarding those accounts, and instead of our usual "desysop, regain tools by RfA" we have some language like "desysoped, but tools may be regained if in light of our FoF a consensus of crats finds consensus to promote". Assuming the RfA was incredibly recent, desysop and running another RfA is a huge resource sink and probably not worthwhile. Giving the crats more info and telling them to reclose seems most efficient. If it had been a few months, or there were intervening issues, then it might make sense to just desysop with directions to RfA again. This would also be something I'd ask the crats about from the start since we'd be shouldering them with work.
— Wug·a·po·des 22:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've only skimmed the RfC, so if there's something I'm missing feel free to point it out. My sense though is that the RfC seemed collegial if spirited, and nothing stood out as over the line when I skimmed through the longer threads. From the outside, it looks like the Contentious Topic (CT) restrictions are effective in focusing debate away from negative conflict (e.g., incivility) and toward healthy debate of the merits. My sense, having read through a fair number of infobox RfCs, is that there are two camps that are relatively set in their opinions on infoboxes and when an RfC happens there tends to be an influx of editors who are more pragmatic in their decisions. The goal of the Arbitration Committee is to make sure that discussion between the more entrenched factions do not become so off-putting that we stop getting that influx of outside editors to RfCs. Other solutions need to be community-led efforts; the committee is not well placed to decide issues of style and content like infoboxes. I think a major issue is that the burgeoning consensus on when and how to use infoboxes isn't really getting updated. The opposition to infoboxes makes a number of good points---for example, on smaller articles infoboxes can encourage new contributors to expand the infobox rather than the article, or edit war over the content in infoboxes on contentious article---which are useful to weigh when deciding when and how to use an infobox. The division into camps for or against infoboxes means we lose out on interesting insights from all sides that stand to make our content better. But that's ultimately a community issue, and not something ArbCom can do. — Wug·a·po·des 06:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a piece of scholarship, the Grisel (2023) paper is not particularly compelling. The author's quantitative data ends in 2020 for no apparent reason, and the author's use of qualitative data treats quotation as a theory-out-of-the-box. Their use of "social capital" is muddy at best, and reading through it the term seems (incorrectly) used as a stand-in for every form of capital Bourdieu wrote about in Forms of Capital except economic. This is confusing because they quote Bourdieu's (1986) definition of social capital: "resources [...] that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of [...] mutual acquaintance and recognition." The author has no measure of resources, no measure of acquaintance, no measure of recognition, no measure of social network; their quantitative measure is edit count, something orthogonal to the features of social capital they quoted. They try to remedy this by focusing on edits in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespaces, but these namespaces are not a coherent field; they house multiple fields that are to some degree independent. The author assumes that this measures participation on edits directly to policies or discussions of policies---"the 'Wikipedia' count concerns the number of edits made to these pages, while the 'Wikipedia Talk' count relates to the number of edits made in the 'talk section' of these pages (which concerns discussions surrounding these pages). As in many other societies, social prominence on Wikipedia is associated with active participation in debates concerning policy and governance."---but it ignores the existence of fields like FAC or DYK where prominence is related to editing and content, or technical contributors whose edit counts would largely be found in Module and Template namespaces. The entire quantitative section is incoherent at worst.
The results of the qualitative section are, to be frank, so obvious that I don't see the value. A human society with factions and cliques? Members of these factions, when they get in trouble, defend each other and mobilize resources in that pursuit? People experienced in conflict are good at conflict? These are not groundbreaking observations. I would argue that in any society, if you piss off large groups of people, you face consequences. To try and make this finding more interesting, the author cites prior work (by a member of my dissertation committee) on conflict talk, but does not discuss the 40 years of scholarship on conflict talk since Eckert and Newmark (1980). Unlike those studies, the qualitative data in Grisel 2023 are largely taken at face value with no additional analysis or investigation. Person A says Person B lost their case because of social capital, Q.E.D., nevermind that what Person A describes as "social capital" is inconsistent with the definition of social capital the author provides, and nevermind the merits of the dispute. The author at no point makes any indication that they controlled for the major confounding factor in the outcomes of cases: the dispute itself.
Compare this work to the other one you cited, Konieczny (2017), and you'll see the glaring difference in quality (strangely Grisel 2023 does not cite this paper). Konieczny motivated his selection of quantitative variables, mentioned cases not taken by the committee, described the research process, provided summary statistics, considered biases in data collection, performed quantitative hypothesis testing, and made conclusions strongly motivated by the constellation of results from these various metrics. As a result, the findings of Konieczny (2017) are compelling, and as a bonus tend to track with my personal experience 10 years after his data collection ceased. That said, I don't think the findings of the two point to the same phenomenon. Grisel attempts to study how decisions are reached and the features of disputants which make certain resolutions more or less likely. Konieczny studies the features of the committee itself and how those structured the distribution of labor and accumulation of influence within the committee. These are not entirely separate, but the outlooks are different. I'd be more concerned about the findings of Grisel (2023) if I actually found its methods or results to be valid. I think Konieczny's (2017) findings are more compelling but also less bleak than Grisel (which should maybe be a hint about which is a more realistic view). According to Konieczny's findings, the largest impacts on decision-making were activity levels and time constraints, with nationality and conflict avoidance being minor contributors at best. In general, the arbitrators doing the most work tend to have the most influence, and the arbitrators with the most time tend to hold relatively privileged positions off-wiki as well.
A brief aside: this is a major strength of Konieczny over Grisel. Konieczny connects these issues to wider society. To indulge the social capital analysis for a second, the accumulation of social (and cultural) capital on Wikipedia is not divorced from the forms of capital one has in meat space. The accumulation of social (and cultural) capital on Wikipedia is made easier if the editor already has extensive capital (social, cultural, or economic) in other fields. Capital begets capital, and Konieczny's results tie in nicely to why we theorize social capital as a form of capital and not merely a kind of influence. If one has a job that pays a lot and gives a lot of free time (lots of economic capital and implying significant social and cultural capital in order to attain and maintain such a social position) then you naturally have more time to devote to the encyclopedia than someone who needs to work long hours for little pay (less economic capital and social or cultural capital may be orthogonal to acquiring or maintaining that social position). As a result, one can invest that external capital (free time) to acquire capital in this field, and the more capital one already has, the easier it is to acquire more in this field (i.e., on-wiki; c.f. capitalism). By comparison, Grisel treats social capital on Wikipedia as something that is divorced from the society Wikipedia is embedded in, and the analysis suffers because it fails to realize that Wikipedia is in the real world and forms of capital at play in wider society structure the ways in which capital is acquired on the site. Notice the difference, Konieczny's findings speak to social capital better than Grisel despite not even being framed around the topic; that's what it looks like when good data and good theorizing go together. New and interesting connections arise naturally and organically without having to be shoe-horned in. Suddenly we are able to understand how even economic capital (something that doesn't operate on Wikipedia) is able to influence behavior simply because Konieczny took the time to consider that people live lives off-wiki.
That's not something the Committee can really fix directly because it implicates fixing social and economic inequalities which prevent economically and socially disadvantaged editors from contributing. The way we get at that is largely what I've been advocating: resolve disputes in a way that considers the burden we place on the time and resources of our editorial community and streamline the arbitration workflows so that participation is less costly for our members. By lowering the time-sink that is project governance, we reduce the reliance on external capital that Konieczny (2017) identified as a major hurdle to achieving the egalitarian and collegial structure we would like to foster. More broadly, it means investing in off-wiki communities by holding edit-a-thons and community education events to lower the barrier to these communities contributing. For example, the essay I use for training new editors focuses on minor edits that new contributors can make with limited time investment to try and balance the workload, and a number of these ideas have been incorporated into the Newcomer tasks feature of the Growth team tools. — Wug·a·po·des 22:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What role does or should precedent play at ArbCom? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the role it plays currently is about right. We consider prior solutions to similar problems and adapt them for solving current problems. We do not have binding precedent because the challenges we face are new and evolving, so flexibility is important so that we can meet the needs of our time rather than the needs of the past. At the same time, most problems we face are not entirely unique, so understanding how our colleagues in the past (and even other deliberative bodies) came to solutions for a similar problem we face is persuasive when deciding among multiple courses of action. We strike a good balance between being agile and consistent by treating even our own decisions as persuasive rather than binding. — Wug·a·po·des 05:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, the Request for Comment remedy of Conduct in deletion-related editing is arguably one of the worst ideas I had and stands out as one of the Committee's biggest mistakes in the last two years. The problem to be solved was that there seemed to be a need for an RfC, but when the Committee has recommended The community hold an RfC it often doesn't happen. So the idea was that we would tap editors as moderators who would see the process through. In practice though it was one problem after another, and the whole initiative just fell apart up to the point that the Committee rightly washed our hands of it. I gave a post-mortem on the initiative back when we decided to shut it down if you're interested in a more detailed analysis. — Wug·a·po·des 06:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ask different arbitrators and you'll get different answers, but I think the core issue is that the amount of work we have is not being met by the available person-hours. Why that is and what to do about it? That's probably where you'll start to get disagreements. Personally I find our workflow to be wildly inefficient and would argue it creates rather consistent harm. Kevin (L235) gave a talk on some of these issues at WikiConference North America a few weeks ago (see his slide deck). I didn't actually see it but he's told me about it and we've chatted about some of the issues so my perspective is influenced by the ideas I've heard him toss around. Anyway, before getting into ideas for solutions, I want to give a sense of just how annoying out workflow is (it's not the glamorous case decisions or bringing the hammer down on ne'er-do-wells, but it's closer to the reality of being an Arb than most of that stuff is anyway).
Administrators have the unblock ticket request system, CheckUsers and Oversighters have their own ticketing cues, as does the volunteer response team; the arbitration committee has a tutorial on how to set up email filters written by another arb probably a decade ago. Those groups, who you would think would make good arbitrators, have been trained on infrastructure and tools we simply do not have. Want to send a canned response? You need to go on ArbWiki, navigate to the page with our template responses, and copy and paste it into your email system of choice. You go from a nice system with ticket assignment, canned responses, a nice queue to sending multiple emails trying to figure out who is taking point. Frustrating to say the least, especially if you've tasted the sweet efficiency of a ticketing system. And that's just email.
Our discussions take place across like four different venues, and different arbs frequent different ones so half the time I'm not even sure where or to whom I said something. We have on-wiki discussions, we have email, we have arbwiki, we have IRC, and probably others that I've lost track of. I'm not even 100% sure how to search our email list archive, I mostly wait for someone else to post a link if it's relevant, and even then I usually have to modify the link because I have multiple Gmail accounts (this is a recent discovery). I forget that I have IRC most days, but every so often someone mentions it and I'm like "oh yeah, that exists". I think there are things on ArbWiki that I wrote that I've just completely forgotten about seeing to completion, and more often than not someone just copies over our votes from email onto the wiki so that we can comply with our internal procedures that say motions are posted on ArbWiki. Cases are managed on-wiki and on ArbWiki; block appeals are done largely by email and on ArbWiki; discussion of open business is done over email or IRC. It's a tangled mess, and different people have different preferences for these platforms; some people would sooner just tune out most of them rather than participate. There are other issues, but these are the ones that I find most annoying and feel most capable of addressing.
So with that sense of the issue, here's some ideas I've had or heard floated that I'd want to actually try supporting if not spearheading
Let clerks triage our emails Kevin has a much more thought-out plan for this than I can do justice to, but the gist is that a lot of our time is taken up by paperwork that could easily be delegated. At the moment, clerks only handle on-wiki paperwork, but there's a lot behind the scenes that most people don't see. We like to send out a template along the lines of "we got your email, we'll get back to you eventually" but we forget a lot of the time. We get a lot of appeals that aren't well written and we need to prompt the editor for more info. We get inquiries that simply aren't our wheelhouse. We need to send form letters for people who have had their appeals granted or denied. It's high volume, but low priority work in the grand scheme of our duties, and every few months we need to train new sets of arbitrators on all of this. Alternatively, we could have the corps of clerks, a fair number of whom have been doing this longer than I've been an arbitrator, handle these routine responses. Kevin, having served as a clerk for quite a while before his current stint on the committee has way more knowledge on this than I do, and I would look forward to supporting an idea like this.
Ticketing system and internal case management As I mentioned, I wasn't at WikiConference North America, so I'm not up to speed on the conversations around Kevin's (and others') presentation. My understanding is that there has been talk among arbitrators and some MediaWiki community members regarding ticketing systems and case management systems that might be implemented for the Committee behind the scenes. I'm honestly in the dark on this one, but I don't need to lead every initiative. It sounds promising, and I look forward to supporting those leading this work.
Contact forms We get a lot of bad unblock requests. Part of the reason is that when you email the committee you're faced with a blank page. The idea behind a contact form is that it allows us to ask questions and provide a structured way for editors to make requests, increasing the likelihood that we get good ones. I've uploaded a mock-up of the form and you can see that it asks for name, email, and subject line (iirc this is modified in the back-end so that we can triage it better regardless of what subject users give). We would ask for what category the appeal falls under using radio buttons, and hopefully users realize that if they don't fall under one of the categories, we'll decline as outside out jurisdiction. We ask for why they are appealing, giving two common options---wrong on the merits or no longer necessary---and a third option (again, hopefully they realize that if it's not one of the first two then it's a likely decline). We ask for some sockpuppet information, prior appeals, and then (not pictured) text boxes for their actual appeal. It's mostly ready to go, just some back end stuff to figure out before it's ready for prime time. Anyway, the hope is that by giving a more structured form, it cuts down on our work sending form letters and hopefully speeds up our review by creating a consistent presentation of information to review; it also can be used by other processes like CU, OS, UTRS, VRT, etc for setting up their own forms so it has a broad benefit beyond the Committee if we can get it working.
Block appeal subcommittee We get a lot of good unblock requests, but when we unblock editors we're essentially putting a burden on the community to monitor them. That's a big ask, and it's hard to judge based only on a couple of paragraphs. An option we've been making greater use of is the "downgrade" where we don't unblock outright, but we allow them to appeal to the community instead of the committee. This is nice because it gives the community more of a say in the decision of welcoming this editor back, but it increases workload on everyone: the committee has to review an appeal, the community has to review an appeal, and the editor needs to do two appeals which can take months. It's also difficult in situations where the editor is globally locked since it's not always obvious whether they should appeal their lock to the stewards first or their enWiki block to us first. The idea is to delegate block review to a subcommittee of arbitrators (importantly not all arbitrators, probably no more than 3 or 4 at any given time) and community members appointed by the committee and who have signed the NDA (so likely functionaries at first, but presumably anyone who would be a good fit). Appeals would be forwarded to this subcommittee and voted on by its members. The goal would be to delegate this work so that we don't need to wait for the whole committee (something we already don't do because of various procedures that let us expedite the process), increase community participation from the start to avoid duplication of work, and providing more transparency around how this aspect of our work is disposed of. We used to have the ban appeal sub committee which was disbanded a while back, but the structure then was rather different. There was no community involvement, and any arb who wanted to could join the subcommittee at any time which really just made the whole thing redundant to the committee as a whole. In talking with editors and arbitrators who were around for that debate, it seems like avoiding a situation like that is for the best which is why the set membership and inclusion of community members is a main priority; the work should be properly delegated.
So those are some of the ideas I have and have heard about. They're not mutually exclusive, for example, a ticketing system for the block appeals sub committee tied to a block appeal form would be a great idea, but we need to implement the pieces first. We're most of the way on the contact form, getting started on the ticket system, and are still workshopping the block appeals subcommittee and clerk triage ideas. I think that's a good pipeline, and the hope is that as we move through them we can reduce our turn-around times, increase our participation, and generally reduce pain points in the system for everyone. — Wug·a·po·des 08:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia works because of the diverse skills of our editors. Content writers produce the articles which serve our readers. Technical contributors provide tools to make content writing easier and more attractive to prospective volunteers. Administrators prevent disruption from affecting our readers and editors. Running an encyclopedia requires many different kinds of labor, and it's all important. — Wug·a·po·des 09:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few months ago I would have considered myself a blocker to the initiative because I was strongly opposed to the idea. I am still not a fan of the idea, but I am no longer a blocker to consensus. Having seen the issues faced by our CU corps and the recent trend of browser development, the legal hurdles leading to IP masking and the burden that places on developers and administrators, coupled with the general decline of helpful IP edits across the movement and it seems like my perspective is going to lose in the long run. Do I support it? No, I think unregistered editing is a sign of our unique perspective on how to structure and engage with the internet. However, it is unfair for me to use that belief to make the lives of our contributors actively harder. Maybe one day the trend will reverse---other wikis like MeatballWiki have closed their doors only to reopen years later---but for now I'm content to step back and let others chart the course. — Wug·a·po·des 09:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. When I used to work somewhat regularly at Requests for page protection children's TV shows were pretty frequent targets. I won't lie and say that the verifiability of our kids TV articles is as crucial as biographies of living people or medical articles, being wrong there could ruin or end lives if we aren't careful. But people, including children, use the encyclopedia for lots of stuff that isn't politics or medicine, and it's important we give them accurate information too. A curious kid should be able to ask her dad about Bluey and when he pulls up Wikipedia to find the answer, we should give them correct information. — Wug·a·po·des 09:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to be sanctioned for wheel warring, don't wheel war. If you don't want to be sanctioned for edit warring, don't edit war. Unless the hypothetical also includes a sudden consensus shift that, actually, we want incredibly unstable articles and now encourage administrators to use their tools as a bludgeons in disputes, wheel warring and edit warring are decades old bright-lines that will result in sanctions if crossed.
Frankly, I also don't really buy into the hypothetical. CONEXCEPT is a list of times where the typical consensus process doesn't apply, so it doesn't really matter that "a consensus under IAR" was formed; that consensus is by our policies invalid. Even if we ignore CONEXCEPT, the number of other policies and guidelines that would need to be repealed or modified to allow unrestricted edit warring and wheel warring suggests that the hypothetical consensus isn't viable. The behavioral guidelines at Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing will need to be changed because we have very strong consensus that IAR does not justify disruptive editing. Our sysop policy at Wikipedia:Administrators#Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring") will need changed because we also have a strong consensus that IAR does not justify bald-faced power struggles as a dispute resolution mechanism. Our policy at Wikipedia:Edit warring will need to be changed to provide an exemption to the 3RR for "being right" and the nutshell will need to be changed since Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion. will no longer be true. The right to form a consensus to tell the Foundation we disagree with a decision is part of CONEXCEPT; but using edit and sysop tools to disrupt the encyclopedia is one of our strongest and most long-standing prohibitions.
I don't think this is particularly realistic (or smart) that we'd jettison decades of behavioral policies in order to make it easier for a particular faction to disrupt the encyclopedia. IAR generally does not apply to behavioral policies; "improving the encyclopedia" generally isn't a good defense for violating WP:NPA for example. I also don't think it would be smart for ArbCom to set a precedent that we will ignore multiple well-established policies out of personal spite or factional allegiance. Another option is that all of those still apply, they just only apply to those on the Wrong Side (TM) or editors without the political power to be granted clemency by ArbCom. That's worse, despite being a more realistic view of how people tend to want rules applied. The Committee is tasked with the evenhanded application of policy, and I'd shy away from using the position to carve out exceptions to long-standing expectations in order to privilege particular factions or undermine conduct expectations. Supporters of a particular faction will always want preferential treatment when their members face consequences for their actions, and while it would be politically easy to say I'd grant amnesty to whatever faction is en vogue this year, that's not what justice is and it's not the role of the Committee. — Wug·a·po·des 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not referring to edit or wheel warring between two factions of the English Wikipedia; I'm referring to edit or wheel warring between the English Wikipedia and the WMF. For example, Interface Admin A implements consensus, the WMF reverses it against consensus, and then Interface Admin B re-implements consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to be sanctioned for wheel warring, don't wheel war. If you don't want to be sanctioned for edit warring, don't edit war.[...]The right to form a consensus to tell the Foundation we disagree with a decision is part of CONEXCEPT; but using edit and sysop tools to disrupt the encyclopedia is one of our strongest and most long-standing prohibitions.[...] — Wug·a·po·des 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever given serious thought to this. As a first impression, I don't think divesting the Committee of CU/OS appointment and oversight responsibilities is the best choice, but I'm open to considering other opinions. For appointments global CheckUser policy and global Oversight policy requires that CU/OS be selected either by an ArbCom or community vote. EnWiki attempted the community vote method in 2010, and it went poorly (RfC on the matter). Of course, consensus can change, and it's been 13 years so it might work this time (but I'm suspicious). More importantly, the selection of CU/OS has implicated private information that may be difficult or legally impossible to share with the community. There's also the importance of candid conversations and how the candidate would work with the existing corps. I also think there's a practical benefit in these positions being relatively a-political when compared to arbcom, sysop, or crat which are closer to straight community votes. None of these are hard blockers (after all, ArbCom is partly a CU/OS appointment vote), but they point to issues that will need to be discussed and hopefully safeguards put in place to prevent the worst outcomes. So I guess the major condition I see is "how do we give due weight to private information when that information cannot be directly shared with the voting body". One route that comes to mind is having functionaries field nominations, and on the basis of their recommendation a candidate can be put forward to a vote. That has the added benefits of letting functionaries state their concerns to colleagues before airing them publicly, though it doesn't really deal with the political concerns of needing to find candidates who get over 70% of the vote (a higher bar than even arbcom).
For oversight of the use of tools, the functionaries generally do a good job of peer review, but I think the committee serves a useful role as a relatively independent oversight body. It's one thing to do peer review and report up, and another thing to investigate and vote to discipline your own colleagues. Internal discipline is not fun in the slightest and leads to internal strife that makes it difficult to work together, especially if rights are retained. Putting the responsibility of oversight and discipline on an external body has some benefit in that it discourages factionalism and grudges within the functionary corps and inspires confidence in the independence of investigations and conclusions. Again, not a hard blocker as many bodies are tasked with internal discipline, but I'd want to see some significant gain to delegating oversight and discipline entirely to the functionary corps. There's the option of reporting up to the ombuds commission, but their charge is more narrow than some of our expectations for functionary behavior. I'd want to see some indication that the functionaries actually want to take this on since it's also a big responsibility to put on a group that so far has been more ad hoc than formal. Maybe that's another necessary condition: I'd want to see the functionaries organize and develop some kind of charter for how these more formal and procedural duties would be handled internally. — Wug·a·po·des 23:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos of question 12. Did not happen in 2022 or 2023, but what think young candidate of decision to admonish Bishzilla for her block of an arbitrator? Arbitrators best not blocked? bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 14:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
If tomorrow I went on a vandalism spree, or started blocking people I didn't like, or started spewing profanity at everyone who mildly inconvenienced me, I would hope an administrator would block the account regardless of what hat I'm wearing (and that no administrator would reverse it just because of my hat). In clear-cut cases with bright line violations, blocks are appropriate tools regardless of the editor, but you asked about best practices not ability. Outside of clear cut cases, it is best not to block arbitrators for the same reason it is best not to use "cool down" blocks or avoid enforcing our civility policies with blocks: the problem tends to be made worse rather than better. That's not to say we should never do these things, rather, we need to be extremely careful and circumspect when making these decisions. What is the goal and will the block achieve it?
Commenting on the issue you link is complicated by the intervening history. Part of the issue surrounding FT2 was that prior to the ratification of the 2011 Arbitration Policy, the community did not give the Committee the power to discipline its own members unlike most elected deliberative bodies. This led to a strange situation where a sitting arbitrator could behave in a way that warranted sanctions, but it was not obvious who was responsible for discipline or how such a disciplinary process would be handled. What I gathered from the some of the discussions I reviewed was that the block in the FT2 situation was largely the result of systematic failures linked to this constitutional issue: the Committee was deliberating but because there was no censure or removal mechanism couldn't make serious progress, Jimbo was asked to intervene but by 2009 his political power had started to wane meaning that an outright intervention would only lead to further constitutional problems, and community calls for resignation were rebuffed. What tool remains? The block button. I don't agree with Bishzilla's choice and probably would not have made it myself, but her decision was not arbitrary or capricious. I genuinely don't know enough about the situation to say whether I agree with the decision the Committee arrived at there. Sounds like a cop-out but it's a completely different arbitration policy, different political landscape, involves multiple people that I know nothing about in a situation I learned about a few minutes ago; I'd need more time to study before I start judging history.
Back to the present day, the community granted the Committee the power to discipline its own members two years after that incident by ratifying the 2011 Arbitration Policy which we still operate under with some amendments. The current policy includes expectations for the behavior of committee members and should members grossly or repeatedly fail to meet those community-ratified expectations, it provides us with processes for censure, suspension, or removal of arbitrators. The hope is that by providing the committee with the power to maintain discipline within its ranks, we can avoid situations where blocking seems like the only available recourse. In the present day I would say "arbitrators best not blocked" not because arbitrators are immune from consequences, but because the community has seen how that situation plays out and in response ratified a process for dealing with arbitrator conduct issues. The ratification of the 2011 policy suggests that the community does not want to rely on a single admin serving as judge, jury, and executioner of a democratically elected servant, but rather a process similar to an impeachment. Outside of emergencies or bright-line violations where a block is immediately necessary to prevent imminent disruption, it's best to respect the disciplinary process added to the Arbitration Policy after the incident linked. And even in those emergency or bright-line situations, because of the 2011 Policy we have tools at our disposal to handle incidents that the 2009 Committee did not have. — Wug·a·po·des 23:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for full and thoughtful reply, Wugapodes. [Bishzilla pulls an item from her extensive archive, a little like a magician producing a rabbit.] Little dialogue here hint processes for censure, suspension, or removal of arbitrators ratified in 2011 may have been influenced by FT2/Bishzilla case. bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 02:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
You have served previously on the Arbitration Committee. How would you respond to concerns that not enough new blood is injected into the committee, and how if at all do you think a high proportion of former arbs in the new tranche would affect ArbCom? Fermiboson (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First-time members help the committee keep pace with and adequately represent the community over time, and that this leads to more diverse perspectives in deliberations. There are other benefits like avoiding the centralization of power, providing experience and mentorship to more editors, and increasing the number of former members out in the community who can "translate" our sometimes cryptic messages into things we wouldn't otherwise be able to say. That said, we generally don't want complete turnover otherwise we wouldn't have institutional memory or the ability to mentor new members, so we stagger elections in tranches.
I think the community generally does a good job balancing new and returning members come election-time. This year, assuming every former arb is elected to a seat, we'd only have 3 returning arbs (2 incumbents, 1 returning). Last year I believe 6 of 8 seats went to former arbs (4 incumbents, 2 returning), and in my first candidacy two years ago 3 seats went to former arbs (2 incumbents, 1 returning). 2020 had 3 of 8, 2019 had 8 of 11, 2018 had 5 of 6, 2017 3 of 8...seems like this year's tranche is at worst on par with the lower end of returning arbs to new member ratio. So I'm not worried that we'll fail to get a solid number of first-time members this cycle even if last cycle there were a lot of returning arbitrators. — Wug·a·po·des 09:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does anything in WP:FRINGE override WP:IMPARTIAL? Sennalen (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, they're just written at different levels of specificity and for slightly different audiences. Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is Shakespeare the most influential English writer? Many people smarter than me have debated these questions and published their opinions in reliable sources. There's really no consensus in the literature on these issues, and it's best that we avoid saying that one or the other is the case given the variety of perspectives in the literature (c.f. WP:DUE). Those kinds of situations are relatively common, and IMPARTIAL gives general advice on how to cover multiple perspectives. FRINGE deals with a similar but more narrow issue: when there is a general consensus in reliable sources, but proponents of niche or unreliable theories are vocal despite being generally rejected by the general body of work on the subject. On the one hand we have a content issue---our content needs to reflect the general consensus of experts on the matter---but we also often have a conduct issue where proponents of these fringe theories will use Wikipedia to advance their agenda when publishing in reliable sources has failed. FRINGE attempts to deal with both of these issues by explaining NPOV (of which IMPARTIAL is a subsection) in a way that we can point disruptive editors to when we explain why they are being told to knock it off. The wording between them might not be perfectly harmonized, but the general principles are complimentary. — Wug·a·po·des 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally good advice in my experience; nothing strikes me as far off-base. If I had to choose, I'd say General point 1 largely because I think there's been some reevaluation of whether focusing on conduct during the case encourages outcomes we want. Essentially, we want people to participate and be candid (and you say as much with your warning against not participating). It is hard to get people to participate if they feel like the whole thing is a trap where more weight is put on their behavior during the case than leading up to it. Now it's obviously good advice to not pick fights during the case or continue behavior that led to it, but at least in the last few cases I recall we've tried to avoid referencing case conduct in findings of fact where prior evidence is sufficient to make the point. I don't think it's much of a practical difference, but I think we're trending away from outright penalizing case conduct that doesn't rise to the level of immediate sanctions.
Bonus answer, general point 3 was also one that I think falls into the "maybe not totally accurate but still good advice" bin. We're not a court and I think some of our biggest issues stem from people thinking we are. That said, we do generally try to be fair and just when coming to decisions, and we try to afford due process given the restrictions of being 15 people on a website. For example, when we add parties to a case, we have recently been very consistent with the timing of that and extending evidence to offer the new parties an equal chance to respond. We try to keep the severity of sanctions roughly consistent for the same transgressions, give warnings where possible, and avoid arbitrary decisions. We're no justice system, but we do try to be fair. Practically speaking, though, it's smart to not encourage people to wikilaywer with us as if not getting to edit an online encyclopedia is in the same ballpark as the deprivation of life, liberty, or property that actual courts can impose. So I'm really nit-picking here. — Wug·a·po·des 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You voted in the recent Arbcom motion which removed another arbitrator. Without commenting on the merits of the action itself (which, as far as I can see, other arbs have already done to the extent confidentiality allows them to), what are your thoughts on 1. the timing of the action as being so close to the election, in particular the action itself being announced less than 24 hours before the start of the election, and 2. additional concerns raised by the complete lack of transparency and prewarning before the drastic (and as far as I can tell, unprecedented) measure? If you or the clerks consider this two questions, I would prefer you answer 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermiboson (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. If I could choose the timing of crises I would schedule them more effectively. This is sadly not a power I have, so the issue was handled as it arose, no sooner and no later. The framing of "24 hours before the start of the election" sounds scary until you compare it to any other option available. The community now has the entire voting period, two full weeks, during which time they can consider the implications. Should we have waited and given the community less time? Announced it after the conclusion of voting? Considering that the committee, without opposition, saw the issue as severe enough to warrant removal of access to non-public information, how long should we have allowed access to continue, and for what purpose? Beeblebrox's term was already expiring and he isn't up for reelection so the only people whose candidacies are at risk from this are me and Cabayi and it has no impact on the number of seats. Should I have asked the committee to allow continued access to private information and delay the motion until after my re-election campaign? Obviously not, so I don't see why informing the community before the voting period starts would be a vice.
2. The question is vague and asks for my thoughts on "additional concerns" regarding transparency without actually giving anything substantive. Here are some general thoughts, in no particular order. Every issue except the present breach of confidence occurred before I was on the Committee. I cannot change the past, and I don't go digging through the arbcom archives unless there's a reason to, so the best option is to announce those prior indiscretions now. The present issues involve confidential information, so there's only so much we can say in public about it. The only people with complete information were committee members governed by confidentiality agreements; even an arbitrator who resigned last month didn't have the complete picture because the information came to us so recently. Genuinely, what purpose would a "prewarning" serve? Generally speaking, editors who I would expect to know better seem to conveniently not consider the issues of casting aspersions, dog piling, and the Streisand effect when they don't fit "transparency" rhetoric. If we put out a statement saying "We're investigating a committee member for something we can't tell you about, but it's bad, except we haven't come to a decision on how bad it is yet" what would the benefits and risks be? Will it draw more attention to content we want to avoid being further distributed until we've had time to consider the risks? Will we need to manage aspersion casting or potential personal attacks against editors on-wiki? Given that commenters don't and can't have complete information on the investigation, what positive effect on the investigation could we expect? Our time is not infinite, so how will managing and monitoring all these additional threads affect the amount of time that can be devoted to the actual investigation itself? Who would draft such a pre-statement, and if we have to vote on it, wouldn't it be faster to just have a vote on the outcomes and do one public statement to avoid wasting time? Given how close we are to elections and the end of his term, how much of a delay can we even afford before the problem gets worse? There seems to be this idea that our options are "hide" or "go public" which is useful if you're trying to make a rhetorical attack but not actually useful when making decisions that are time sensitive and saying too much too soon can result in violating your NDA.
In my experience "transparency" is often used as rhetorical smoke and mirrors; it's a convenient buzzword everyone will agree with even though their individual conceptions differ. The speaker can then leverage a false consensus effect to make it seem like these disparate beliefs are actually coherent, "winning" the argument without actually needing to supply a means for how to balance the various countervailing principles at play when making decisions in real life. What people mean by "transparency" is usually not defined, and that's useful because then you can move the goal posts when someone actually stakes out a clear position in response to the reality of decision-making. I bring this up because it's a counterexample to the kinds of discussions I've had with Barkeep49 over the years that have been productive and changed minds and procedures. In my experience, Barkeep49 is one of the staunchest and most effective proponents of transparency on the committee. In our discussions, "transparency" isn't just a buzzword, it's one principle of many that we weigh when making decisions and he gives specific reasons and solutions for how we can effect it while minimizing potential harms. In my two years I've realized that the Committee's speech can foment mobs and even draw attention from the press; that is dangerous and not something to be done lightly (truly brief aside: this is one of the major lessons I learned from the Holocaust in Poland case and why I'm generally more careful about the negative impacts associated with thrusting people into the spotlight).
In the present instance you ask about, would I have liked prior committees to have been more transparent? Yeah, but I don't have the ability to change history or decisions of committees I wasn't on. Could we have put out some "prewarning" that we were considering this? Sure, but then we would have had to delay a crucial decision right before an election while we spent time drafting a statement, voting on it, and managing the responses all the while an editor is sitting in limbo regarding the outcome. Transparency is important---that's why we published private information regarding on-list discussions from prior committees and included a roll-call vote in our statement which (if you go through WP:ACN) is itself quite rare for our announcements; I would hesitate to call that a complete lack of transparency, though some may reasonably desire more. Transparency is important, but it doesn't come for free and is not completely benign. If transparency were an unmitigated good, our community-ratified charter wouldn't require arbitrators to treat internal communications as confidential, and we wouldn't be subject to legally-binding NDAs; everything would simply be public. Instead we need to weigh transparency against our other duties, and sometimes, yes, that means not everything can be shared with the community immediately. If you want complete and total transparency consequences be damned, then we simply won't see eye to eye, but if someone wants to understand why or how I come decisions then we need to entertain a more realistic approach which weighs the costs and benefits of transparency against other compelling interests such as expediency and minimizing harm. — Wug·a·po·des 20:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV is not country specific, so we should represent a global view of topics. The bias towards perspectives of English-speaking countries reflects the fact that most people who edit the English Wikipedia come from English-speaking countries, and finding or reading sources in another language is hard. English-speaking editors from non-English-speaking countries should be welcomed and encouraged to provide perspectives published in reliable sources in their language, and other editors should work hard to verify that these non-English sources are reliable and support the claims. Those of us who speak languages other than English should also work to translate important articles from Wikipedias in other languages like I did with Eduard Müller (Austrian politician) when he became Finance Minister after the removal of Austrian ~~President~~ Chancellor Kurz. The "English" in English Wikipedia just means we write and work in English, it doesn't mean English-language perspectives are the only ones that matter. — Wug·a·po·des 20:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Correction: Sebastian Kurz was Chancellor in 2019, not President, when his first government collapsed; the President at the time was Alexander Van der Bellen who remained in the position despite the collapse of the first Kurz government. 09:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] McCormack, Mark H. (1994). What they don't teach you at Harvard Business School. London: HarperCollins. p. 87. ISBN 9780006369530.

[1]