Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Questions/All

2022 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 09:24 (UTC), Wednesday, 15 May 2024 ()

• Thank you for participating in the 2022 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.

Guerillero

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

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

   We as a community have long understood that users with a conflict of interest do not always make the same decisions as those who do not. This comes out in both our editorial and administrate policies. For those of us who hold advanced permissions, we are prohibited from using our tools in places where we either have or are perceived to have a conflict of interest. They can stem from either on wiki disputes or off wiki factors. A good administrator and/or functionary should have the good sense to know when their judgment may be clouded and it is best for someone else to do an action.

   Of the cases you ask about, I am only going to look at Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block since it is the only case from the contemporary era of the committee's history. Things get wonky as you go back in ArbCom history and policy changes. In Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, the committee's principle is an almost word for word restatement of the current policy. The one thing that I may quibble with is "The sole listed exception to this prohibition [...]". Policy never states that there is an exemption, just that the community has allowed some kinds of involved actions in the past. As for the finding of fact, I think it is sensible and within current policy. I may not find involvement just based on being a nominator, but TNT's statements on Athaenara's talk page are clear evidence of "strong feelings". --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

   I honestly don't foresee much of a change. The UCOC was mostly cribbed from EN Wikipedia policies and the enforcement guidelines, by and large, are an carbon copy of the ways that policy is currently enforced on EN Wikipedia. There will certainly be people who will try to use the U4C to overrule EN Wikipedia's ArbCom, but the enforcement guidelines explicitly rule this out — "If no such enforcement structure exists, then an appeal to the U4C can be permissible." (emphasis added). There is the open possibility that the U4C could find that there is a systematic failure to follow the UCOC. After all, the UCOC has, relatively weak, persuasive authority at ArbCom and in discussions on EN Wikipedia compared to local policies. I don't see the community allowing sanctions based on the exact wording of the UCOC if it conflicted with the exact wording of local policies. However, I find the possibly of the U4C injecting itself into EN Wikipedia somewhere between unlikely and remote due to the ongoing issues on other language Wikipedias and sister projects that will occupy much of its time. It would also create the largest constitutional crisis in the Wikimedia Movement since FRAMBAN, and I don't see the U4C going out of their way to kick the largest hornet's nest in the movement. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   A-N-I; thank you, Sammy! --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   This is the fourth time in nine years that I have fielded a question about infoboxes from you (see 2013, 2014 and 2020). Five of the twelve editors running in this year's election, including an incumbent arbitrator, did not have their current accounts when you first asked me a question about the subject. With the time elapsed in mind and the lack of recent contentious discussions, I think the infobox wars, if they still go on, only live on in your heart. Are you ready to let go and let bygones be bygones? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   It looks like a standard contentious RfC. Some people have made, what I would consider to be, overly-spirited comments and there is a small amount of snipping. Both of those things are to be expected when an issue is contentious, and it is nothing like what lead to the two cases in 2013 and 2018. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, - I can't compare because I don't know what led to 2013, - what I know is only the introduction of {{infobox opera}} then, which can't be all, and has been resolved. I had nothing to do with 2018. I let go in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your last answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from Mr Ernie

2. First of all, thank you for running. When you are deciding on actions at AE, what considerations do you take into account for indefinite vs time limited sanctions? To what extent does editor experience factor into this consideration?

   The consensus of AE admins for the past several years has been that time-limited topic bans and interaction bans do not work. I would much rather a user come back in 3-6 months showing that they were able to edit in other parts of the encyclopedia without issue, than create a system that incentivizes waiting a sanction out. The one place where I think time-limited sanctions are useful is when an editor is wrapped up in a singular discussion and is unwilling to step back on their own, but is otherwise a positive contributor. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from BilledMammal

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

   I can't see a reason why we would ever need to base a principle or finding of fact solely on the UCOC because EN Wikipedia has such a robust set of policies and guidelines that cover almost everything. I won't say never, but it would be have to be an edge case. I wouldn't have an issue with adding the UCOC as a cross reference, but principles or findings of fact should be based on local policy. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

2. You had recently said that We don't own Wikipedia and the WMF can do whatever it wants on techincal matters. Will you as an arbcom member support the WMF if they implement anything against community consensus, for example the RFC that found consensus against running the proposed fundraising banners?

   My position has nothing to do with taking sides. As a committee, we interpret policy as written by the community rather than write it. Policy is extremely clear: "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus." The board sees the decision to run fundraising banners as part of this power. Further, banners are an office action, which is also immune from consensus. If they wanted to force the wording through they spent the last few months working on, they could under our current policy.

   However, this all is in the realm of theoretical constitutional law rather than something that might actually happen. The foundation has listened to community feedback and has released new wording that complies with the requests from the community. This is excellent. Rather than raising the temperature around this issue and threatening to play chicken, we should be thanking the WMF for sharing drastically changed drafts in a matter of hours. For the non-Americans, yesterday was a major holiday in the US and today is a a common day off work for non-service employees. People put in overtime to get these for us. I can't think of a better show of good faith from the WMF. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Dreamy Jazz

2. What experience from clerking, if any, do you think is transferable to being an arbitrator?

   Having been on both sides of the fence, clerking has several transferable skills:

   Inexperienced drafting arbs have often taken a hands-off approach to conduct at a case. Sometimes this is fine because the parties see that it is in their best interests to get along, but other times the case descends into a mud pit. Clerks have seen the conflicts that happen at cases before and can better tell when something is about to go sideways.

   The committee relies on an almost byzantine collection of templates, policies, and procedures. The clerks are the only people on the project who actually know how most if it is supposed to work. I highly doubt that any current arb, except for Kevin, could open a case or close a motion. Because of this, at least one member of the committee should be a former clerk. Sometimes you have to do your own paperwork.

   Due to my 9 years of experience as a clerk, arb, AUSC member, or functionary, I have a long institutional memory. The first case I clerked was Rich Farmbrough in 2012. I was around for when the current version of DS was written by AGK. I wrote the remedy that created ECP. I know that the committee can, and has, done review cases. There are several LTAs that I know well. If elected, this experience would let me hit ground running. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

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

   In every case the committee weighs the presented evidence by looking through the presented diffs. Sometimes, parties submit diffs that do not back up the behavior claimed. This is why it is important to read all of the presented diffs. However, I still agree with what I said 12 and 24 months ago when you asked me similar questions. Arbs are not private eyes, and they are therefore not required to go sleuthing for evidence that was not submitted. It is a downside of the process, but it is the process we have. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   No --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers, Guerillero. I ask all candidates the same questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   I edit Wikipedia because it is fun. Secondary to that, I edit Wikipedia because I want to preserve knowledge of topics that I feel are overlooked or maligned. In Philosopher of Art Marcia Muelder Eaton's 1983 book Art and Nonart: Reflections on an Orange Crate and a Moose Call, she spends the last chapter exploring how Norman Rockwell's paintings are "bad art" or not even art at all. For most of it she finds the objects to Rockwell's work by important art historians to be vapid. It is of a high degree of technical skill and is based on the Old Masters. In the end, she accepts the idea that Rockwell didn't produce real art because it was too accessible without much fuss and ends the book. While unspoken, the core of this accessibility argument is classism; the hoi polloi like it, therefore it must not be good art because it has to be enjoyed by the upper-class alone. This kind of classism has permeated into Wikipedia, and can be seen by the blind spot we have for low art. For example, Norman Rockwell's major works are still mostly untouched despite being the kind of art that was hung in the homes of people my grandparent's age. Pushing back against this is one of the four major genres of my content creation. I will never finish, but I hope that my work shows a reader that there are amazing stories behind the ordinary. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Izno

2. As a current or former arbitrator, you know ArbCom gets busy with appeals, casework, and other emails, as a matter of course. ArbCom also tries to improve its own processes or procedures in any given year to ease community use of the process or to decrease the amount of work it does. Now that discretionary sanctions are reformed (for some value of reformed :), what are the one or two things large things, or a few more small things, you think ArbCom should work on this year to improve its processes? Izno (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   If I could do one big thing, I would like to reform the way appeals get done. Right now, as reported by current and recent past arbs, the lion's share of the work is dealing with CU, OS, and ArbCom appeals. The ArbCom appeals can't be changed without some constitutional jittering, but there is nothing stopping someone else from handling the CU/OS appeals. That is why I think the arbs and the functionaries should explore how to approach them in a sustainable way. I have suggested to hand them to the functionaries en banc, but Beeblebrox has pitched a sensible idea on Wikipediocracy to use the functionaries as a filter for appeals. I don't know what the best option is, but there is room for creativity here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   I decline to answer this question due to the ongoing RfC that may be a subject of future arbitration. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from El_C

2. You used to be one of my top supports in past attempts, but now for the first time I'm leaning oppose. Say you were interested in regaining my support (not a given), what would you do to assure me you would stand up to WMF overreach (UCoC and beyond)? Like, for real? The sense (my sense) lately is that you've been quick to praise the WMF — but criticize them, not so much. So, it might help to keep that in mind when answering (if answering, you're not obliged to as far as I'm concerned). Thanks. El_C 13:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   I admit I have a much more collaborative theory of change vis-a-vis the WMF than some in the community, but not one that prohibits conflict. My experience is that, more often than not, foundation staff are trying to do the right thing and value the community. The problem is that many staffers are pulled from the tech industry rather than the community which leads to problems. They do not grasp the level of co-governance that goes on here. This is why my first instinct is to educate and collaborate rather than to fight with the foundation. In September, I blocked a series of WMF staff accounts and WMF test accounts for not complying with our local policy on the use of alternative accounts. Throughout the process, I was extremely clear that our local policies were non-negotiable both on-wiki and in the call I had with T&S and Engineering. What shined through our call was that the testing team members weren't aware of what they were getting themselves into. They had no community advocate (I think that is still the title) on their team who could have explained our policies and WMF policy around our wikis. All of the people who I met with were acting in good faith and were extremely receptive to what RoySmith, Barkeep, and I had to say. This work led to a foundation policy with explicit protections for the English Wikipedia.

   When I think we have passed the point where collaboration is possible, I can be combative with the foundation. I personally think that the community is incredibly ineffective exerting influence on the foundation because open letters and angry posts on internal pages make us feel good but do not move the needle. That is why, when WP:FRAM happened, I channeled my unhappiness towards something that I felt would push the WMF in a better direction by talking to the press. The WMF needs positive press to keep large and small donations coming in. Through a friend, I was introduced to Joseph Bernstein, who was looking for sources on an article about Framgate. I provided background information to him over twitter DMs, emails, and a phone call that shaped his article. I think it helped raise its credibility because he was able to talk about internal Wkipedia processes in a knowledgeable way. Katherine's subtweet about it also helped. I think it was one of several articles that pushed the board to push the staff to resolve the conflict.--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Femke

2. Being a party to an Arbcom case can be highly stressful. It's no surprise editors often choose to leave the project after an outcome like a warning or desysop. What do you think the committee can and should do to make the experience less painful for involved editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

   I think the committee can do several things to make the process more pleasant. The first is getting the proposed decision out on time and then voting on it swiftly. This year has been better than most on this point, the committee has historically let cases drag on leaving the sword of Damocles hanging above peoples heads.

   The other thing that the committee can do better is to be painfully upfront about the realities of arbitration to parties. Some people have found my guide to arbitration to be flippant, but personally, I find it to be one of the few places the unwritten rules and mores of the process have been put down. I have seen far too many people shoot themselves in the foot while a case is underway. Sometimes this is due to people's reaction to scrutiny, but there have been other times where I wonder if it happened due to ignorance of the process.

   Some of this is found in my proposed Workshop reform. In 2012, a now banned user wrote "How this project works now is like a big empty parking lot, a bunch of brand new cars being unloaded, and people who have never driven before are being given keys and told to go park without error." when talking about new users creating articles. The same thing can be said about people arriving to arbitration for the first time. The committee owes it to parties to not set the up for failure due to the 2004 design of our pages. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

GeneralNotability

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Indignant Flamingo

2. Whenever I see your username, I remember reading this discussion from your creffett days, which made a strong and lasting impression on me at a time when people in my life were targets of real abuse from racists who made similar kinds of "jokes". My sense is that you were going along with the "jokes" to get along with a group of wikifriends. In my opinion the Arbitration Committee doesn't need people who go along to get along, but I also don't want to assume that one discussion is representative of how you handle things now. So, my question: can you provide some on-wiki examples of times when you've handled a situation like that differently, for example by steering an inappropriate discussion toward (to use the words from your statement) compassion and understanding? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Hi Indignant Flamingo. I'd like to start out by saying that I'm truly sorry that people in your life have been subjected to abuse like that and that my comments left such a negative impression on you (and if others were put off or even hurt by my words, I offer you my apologies as well). I'm not going to wave it away by saying I was "going along" with other folks, since that just shifts the blame. What I will say is that both in "real life" and on Wikipedia, I've spent a long time working on being more thoughtful about how my words (and particularly my humor) will read to those around me, and I still get it wrong sometimes; this was one of them. Reading over the linked discussions now, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what my thought process was: "I know there are people who genuinely using this sort of language to harm Chinese folks, but I don't mean it in a racist way, so it's okay, right?" The answer, clearly, is no, and looking back now, those comments were not in keeping with the person I want to be.

   As for your actual question, I don't think I have any examples at hand; since becoming an admin I've definitely been less "chatty" on talk pages and in projectspace, so I'm not involved in these sorts of discussions anywhere near as much as I was back then. I have definitely commented on discussions that got too close to personal attacks/inappropriately ascribing motives with words to the effect of "can we please focus on conduct," though I don't have specific examples at hand other than one I made on my alt a while back (before someone asks how I found that one...I do tend to hang out at the noticeboards when I'm on my alt and there's way fewer edits, so it's much easier to search). I also made a number of comments during the recent Athaenara case that might be what you're looking for here, though I think those were less "steering the discussion" and more "calling out what I felt was inappropriate" – see, for example, Special:Diff/1115437648. I hope I've managed to answer your concerns.

   And really: I do appreciate you bringing this up. My userpage says in part that I won't be perfect on [civility], of course, and if you think I'm being uncivil, please feel free to drop me a note about it, and this is exactly the sort of thing I was asking for there.

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Hi Red-tailed hawk. At its core, INVOLVED is about administrative neutrality, both in terms of ability to act neutrally and external perception of actions as being neutral. As for the cases you've cited:

   * Instead of giving a whole list of my thoughts about the Athaenara case, I'd like to refer you to some comments I made in the PD phase (first two paragraphs in my section) that are specifically about INVOLVED. I do believe that TNT was INVOLVED in that case and should have handed the admin actions off to someone else, but I think there's more to consider than just the bright line test.

   * Manning: wow, nine years already? This one I honestly have a harder time with. Policy-wise, David Gerard was in the wrong; the article move was clearly the sort of editorial decision that makes one INVOLVED, and the subsequent use of tools were textbook "using admin tools to gain advantage in a dispute". On the other hand...I think I agree with his rationale, or at least sympathize with it, even if his methods were wrong, and those are the tough cases. I'm curious how that case would have gone if it happened today; I think our treatment of transgender subjects has changed a fair amount since 2013.

   *Okay, now we're into 2010...I'll be honest, this is well before my time and is a very complex case (an RFC/U on whether an admin counts as INVOLVED? wow.) and I don't think I can give a sufficiently informed opinion on how INVOLVED applies. I will say that I'm generally leery of calling someone INVOLVED with respect to a whole topic area without very good cause, and yet I find remedy 10.1 interesting (makes me wonder if an ArbCom remedy of "in this topic area, you should always be considered INVOLVED" could be viable...need to mull on that more).

Questions from Izno

2. As an arb, you will have to deal with messes which often have a lot of reading attached to them. Some of them will be the reasonably ordered messes most cases are. Some of them won't be. One mess I regularly think about is this case request (last revision before archival and first revision). Assuming (for simplicity's sake) that the entire discussion was held onwiki, can you share some thoughts on how you might have responded to the original case request, the changes in aggregate that occurred while the request open, and the ultimate case request? Izno (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   As originally presented, I probably wouldn't have accepted – the initial request was about a specific problem between a couple of editors, and my impressions based on the initial evidence alone are that the core question (If a newspaper publishes an article critical of an editor's editing, can the editor remove that newspaper article, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia? isn't something that rises to case-worthy and that this was still something the community could handle; at the very least, I would have pressed hard on why this needed to go to arbitration and what fundamental problems were preventing the community from solving the problem. And then the final version...well. A shift to the specter of Icewhiz and expanding to more of the APL mess. There are clearly problems in the topic area, but the case request spent a lot of time wandering back and forth and I don't think it ever actually hit on anything new that the committee could do that weren't already covered by previous cases/sanctions areas. I do like NYB's summary of the situation. As for "how I would have responded over time", well, a glib but accurate answer is "one diff at a time" (that's how I prefer to review complex noticeboard discussions: step through them edit by edit so that I get a good feeling for what answers were made when, which is hard to do on a normal noticeboard and doubly so when doing ArbCom-style one-section-per-editor). I think my responses would have generally been "give us specific diffs," "what new behavior differentiates this from previous cases in the topic area," "what do you think the committee can do here that wasn't done in a past case." There would also have probably been a handful of frustrated "can we pick a topic, please" comments, and I might have suggested closing the case request as-is and starting with a clean slate once the shift from "newspaper article COI" to "general problems in APL" happened. Hoping this gets at what you're looking for.

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

   I don't expect a huge amount of change – assuming ArbCom is the "local governance structure," a lot of UCoC topics look like they're things ArbCom already deals with. My biggest concern is whether people will decide that all UCoC violations need to go to ArbCom for a "case". UCoC sections 3.1 (harassment) and 3.3 (vandalism) are things administrators routinely handle on their own, and I think it should stay that way, while 3.2 (abuse of power) look like things that would usually go to ArbCom right now either because of complexity or because they involve abuse of permissions. As written, it looks like the U4C isn't going to become a "super-ArbCom," which I believe was a common concern. Of course, none of this has actually been put into practice ( GeneralNotability is not a crystal ball), and we'll have to see how things actually work out in practice; I do think that ArbCom needs to be an active stakeholder in the UCoC roll-out process to advocate for the enwiki community.

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

   A-N-I. Full stop.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   Ah, infoboxes...along with MOS/article titles, they're the topic areas that I'm simultaneously astounded that we need DS for and yet, somehow, it also makes perfect sense. All I can say here is that I have not personally witnessed "infobox wars" in my editing.

4. Thank you, and I believe DS has made no sense, because I witnessed not one instance of them being helpful, but many where they were presented to harmless users who didn't even know there was any conflict. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   It's clear from a brief read of the RfC in question that this is an issue that goes back a long, long ways. An RfC appears to be an appropriate way to determine a way forward, but beyond that, I don't feel sufficiently informed about the history to have anything to say.

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Questions from 53 Angle

2. Do you think that there should be an independent body (short of the relevant Californian statutes regarding data protection and service provision) tasked with looking into evidence backed allegations of the improper use of the CheckUser tool? How do you rate the effectiveness of the current quasi-independent Ombuds Commission in investigating and reporting on such allegations? Could you provide details of any current or past investigations by the Commission into your use of the CheckUser tool, and their outcome? Privacy concerns notwithstanding. 53 Angle (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

   — 53 Angle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Question from BilledMammal

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

   I don't see any inherent reason not to. I don't think we're compelled to cite it, and enwiki already has a well-developed collection of policies and large body of ArbCom "case law" to cite, but I see nothing wrong with using it as a basis where it's relevant to the case.

Question from Dreamy Jazz

2. What experience from clerking, if any, do you think is transferable to being an arbitrator?

   I'd say a fair amount transfers, but only in a way that gives me a head start rather than a real "advantage" over non-clerks. Clerks certainly get to see arbitration proceedings up close, but you get that as a party to a case too, and I think the detached perspective of a clerk doesn't translate to being "in the weeds" as an arb as well as being a party does (since clerks generally only act at the direction of arbs and so the weight of decision-making doesn't really rest on your shoulders, whereas commenting on a case or especially being a party has a good deal more pressure). I feel like I've gotten the chance to see more of some of the behind-the-scenes areas (paying more attention pages like WP:ARCA than I would otherwise), and I've gotten to spend a lot of time staring at the clerk procedures and am familiar with minutiae like word counts, case opening/closing procedures, etc. Basically, I think that my experience as an arbitration clerk means that I don't need to spend time reading up on arbitration policy before I can start doing on-wiki arb things.

   And since you asked about clerking experience, and since I've been asked privately why I didn't highlight my arbclerk experience in my statement, going to digress briefly with a comment: I intentionally did not highlight my arbclerk experience in my candidate statement because of what I said above, and also because I don't want people to see arbclerk as a stepping-stone to ArbCom, part of a cursus honorum if you will.

Question from Nosebagbear

2. Currently, outgoing arbs retain their CUOS rights indefinitely (subject to the normal). Would you be open to a change of process so that outgoing arbs only retained their CUOS rights until the next CUOS application round, where they would have to request and be granted them in order to retain them?

   A question very close to my heart! Yes, I would be open to discussing something like that (obviously caveated with something like "they don't need to reapply for rights they held pre-election", not to sound too self-serving). I've also mulled over the idea of a view-only role for arbs (that is, can view CU logs, OS'd material, and OS logs, but can't run checks or suppress), though I don't think that would work out in practice; arbs do need CU at least for investigations. My stance on the matter is basically this: arbs are elected because of community trust, but I don't think the average voter is picking arbs specifically because of their CU/OS suitability. Don't get me wrong, some of our best functionaries got their funct bits through election to ArbCom, and arbs are generally elected because the community trusts their judgment, but I think that once an arb has left office they should be subjected to the same appointment process as anyone else. My main concern is that process becoming a rubber stamp: the next committees routinely saying "so-and-so held the bit for two years as an arbitrator with no concerns, keep it" when the next CUOS appointments come around.

Questions from Kudpung

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

   I'm not clear what makes evidence "de facto" evidence, but the committee should be reading the diffs presented with any evidence (and their context) and making sure that those diffs actually support what the commenter is saying.

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

   Bit of a pointed question, isn't it? Kind of ambiguous phrasing, though – "exempt from due process," to me, implies that the problem is they're not receiving due process, which generally is about the rights of the accused (that is, they're not being treated fairly, perhaps that they're receiving summary judgment instead of a proper "trial"). The tone, however, suggests that you're saying arbs aren't being required to follow the rules that everyone else does. My answer's actually the same either way: nobody is above the law, if two people do the same thing wrong they should be subject to the same process.

Thank you for your answers. I asked all candidates the same questions. You appear to have understood the questions. Wrg to Q1, you could have elaborated as to whether diffs should be investigated if they are cherry picked or even taken deliberately out if context for impact. But I didn't ask you that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   Originally, it scratched an itch, so to speak: I've previously done a fair amount of volunteering for open-source development projects, but stopped because I wasn't using the software anymore, and contributing to Wikipedia filled that same open-source contributing-to-the-greater-good niche but didn't require me to run special software and was easy to pick up and put down. Now? It's become my community. I've made a lot of acquaintances and some genuine friends during my time here (some through on-wiki contact, some off-wiki on places like IRC and Discord) and I genuinely enjoy hanging out here and being part of the community. I've come to like article writing when I have the time, and I get the satisfaction of crossing things off of a to-do list as I work backlogs in the areas where I normally contribute.

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   I'd read MANDY before you asked this and have previously been pro-MANDY, but had only heard of NOTMANDY in passing (hadn't actually read it until you asked this question). Having read NOTMANDY and re-read MANDY, I'd say that these days, I'm more in agreement with NOTMANDY, particularly the concern at the end of the lead that [t]he most common inference from the absence of a denial is that the accusation is true. Including a brief snippet to the effect of "so-and-so denies the allegations" or "so-and-so maintains that they are innocent of all charges" is not, in my opinion, compromising our neutrality or indicating that we believe them. This does require reliable sources in support, of course, and does not require that we give the person a platform beyond "so-and-so denies the allegations".

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.

---

Question by Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I see the policy on administrative involvement as reflecting the distinction between content and conduct. An administrator is involved in a controversy if they have been editing the content, in which case they should allow other administrators to deal with any conduct issues. An administrator who is involved with the content of an article may not use administrator tools to "win" a content dispute. The policy on involvement is explained in considerable detail in the Climate Change statement of principles, and I agree with those statements of principle. In that case, an administrator was admonished and restricted, and I think that ArbCom acted reasonably in that respect. In a predecessor dispute to Climate Change, an administrator was desysopped (had their administrator status revoked), largely for using administrative tools to win content disputes. In the Manning naming dispute, an administrator protected the name of the article after moving/renaming it, thus (mis)using an administrator tool in a content dispute. The administrator should have been either desysopped or admonished and restricted, and was admonished and restricted. The Athaenara case involves a somewhat different sort of involvement, because the involvement was in an RFA rather than about article content. I agree that the administrator/functionary who was sanctioned was wrong to use a functionary tool while they were involved.

Questions from InsaneHacker

2. Thank you for standing for election. In your candidate statement, you reference your experience volunteering at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which, like ArbCom, deals with disputes in the broadest sense. However, there are also differences between DRN and ArbCom. The former handles content disputes and is based on voluntary participation by participants, while the latter handles conduct disputes in situations where parties are often involuntarily brought before it.
   What are the skills you've gained from DRN work which you think would be most useful as an arbitrator, and in what areas might you need to have a different mentality as an arbitrator than as a DRN volunteer?

   The skills that are applicable to both DRN and ArbCom include a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the willingness to read through walls of text, the ability to recognize the mix of content and conduct issues in a dispute, and a recognition that the objective is the improvement of the encyclopedia. A content dispute mediator should keep attention focused on the article in question, to try to minimize the impact of any conduct issues. What I will have to do differently as an arbitrator is to focus on the conduct, because ArbCom does not resolve content disputes. The ability to distinguish content issues from conduct issues is important for both content mediators and arbitrators, who address the two types of disputes.

Just adding one question for now. InsaneHacker (💬) 00:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from TheresNoTime

2. How do you foresee the role of the Arbitration Committee changing with regard to the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct (namely, due to the enforcement guidelines, and the introduction of the global Coordinating Committee)? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I see that your question is about the enforcement provisions and the global U4C. How the U4C affects the ArbCom will depend on whether the U4C interprets the enforcement provisions as they are written, or attempts to increase its power. The enforcement provisions state that the U4C is co-equal to ArbComs, and has final jurisdiction in appeals when there is no other appellate body, or when the appellate body is not functioning. If the U4C respects the self-government of the English Wikipedia and the co-equality of its ArbCom, there will be slight changes to the role of the ArbCom, involving coordination with the U4C in cases of cross-wiki abuse. If the U4C attempts to deal with English Wikipedia conduct issues, ArbCom will also have to advocate for the autonomy of the English Wikipedia, just as it did in the Fram case.

4. Is ANI pronounced A-N-I or Annie? Thank you for standing, and good luck. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Acronyms should normally be spelled out letter by letter, and this is no exception. It's Ay-En-Eye.

Question from Beyond My Ken

2. Robert, you stood for RfA twice, in 2006, and in 2017. In the first you did not collect a sufficient percentage of votes, and in the second you withdrew your candidacy before it could be closed as failed. As a result, you stand now for a seat on the Arbitration Committee as a non-admin. I believe that -- except for trivial cases way back in Wikipedia's history, when Jimbo Wales appointed arbitrators -- no non-admin has ever been elected to the committee. Since becoming an arbitrator is more difficult than becoming an admin, why did you make the decision to stand for ArbCom knowing that it would be extremely difficult to be elected, and that you are bucking precedent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   It should be more difficult to be elected as an arbitrator than designated as an administrator, because arbitrators have even greater responsibility. I think that RFA is still too difficult, and that it is at least as difficult to pass RFA as to be elected an arbitrator. ArbCom elections are a more civilized process than RFA.

4. What would you say to members of the community who might feel that you should have stood at RfA and become an admin first, before then attempting to become an arbitrator in some future year? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I will tell them that I respect their opinion, and that we disagree.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   Yes, there are infobox wars. On the one hand, I haven't recently seen any edit-wars over whether an article should have an infobox. On the other hand, two of the most recent disputes that I mediated were about the content of an infobox, so I can guess that there are also edit-wars over whether there should be an infobox. There have been two ArbCom cases about infoboxes, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes in 2013, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions in March 2018. The 2018 case authorized discretionary sanctions including a remedy known as infobox probation. The two remedies for infobox wars should be infobox probation to minimize conduct issues, and Requests for Comments to decide the content issue of whether to have an infobox. Whether to have an infobox is a content decision, and RFC is the usual means of resolving content disputes that are not resolved otherwise.

4. Thank you for your thoughts. You described conflicts well but I wouldn't call them war - actually not even in 2012 when I became aware of them, on Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. I doubt that discretionary sanctions and infobox probation have helped much. RfC has been used, twice this year (that I noticed). In a third case - Cosima Wagner - I debated with myself (on the article talk) if I should start one, but didn't because I am afraid it would be regarded as initiating another battle, and because it would consume the precious time of those who'd comment. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   I think that RFC was very well summarized by the closer, who went to lengths to explain how the conclusion to have the infobox was supported both by a numerical consensus and by good policy-based arguments. An RFC is a better way to resolve a content dispute than edit-warring.

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Questions from RoySmith

2. I've noticed that you often comment in the preliminary statements section of case requests. I'll leave you with a somewhat open-ended (multi-part) question: Could you talk a bit about how cases are run? What parts of the current process works well? What parts could be improved? To what extent should the arbs base their decision on their own investigations and deliberations, and how much on the comments posted by the community?

   I will start by saying that, in my opinion, input from the community, other than evidence, is unlikely to be helpful in cases that have been accepted by ArbCom, because ArbCom hears cases that the community is unable to resolve, often because it is divided or polarized. For more or less that reason, I think that the workshop is usually the least useful phase. I do not recall a recent case where it appeared that the workshop was useful in focusing the attention of Arbcom. I will add that my comments to ArbCom on case requests are usually about whether ArbCom should accept the case and what its scope should be, which are questions that the arbitrators sometimes discuss as they are deciding whether to take a case.

Question from DanCherek

2. Thanks for volunteering. In your statement, you write: If that means that ArbCom should reduce its back-office load of invisible appeals, then ArbCom should reduce its back-office load of invisible appeals. On a practical level, what steps would you take (or propose) to make this happen? DanCherek (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I don't have much knowledge of or insight into the invisible back-office work, but I know that Arbitrators have referred to it. At this point I would think that it might be in order to assign one or two Arbitrators, or one or two functionaries, the role of screening the appeals. Many of the unblock requests that come in by email only require a brief review to know either that the editor is still a net negative, or that the editor deserves one more chance.

Question from BilledMammal

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

   Yes. Section 3 of the UCoC, on Unacceptable Behavior, is consistent with the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If an editor's behavior violates a subsection of Section 3, the ArbCom should refer to it in the Finding of Fact, and if necessary in a Principle, in sanctioning the editor. Citing the UCoC when applicable may help to ensure that we are left alone by the U4C.

Questions from Kudpung

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

   Yes. The evidence consists largely of diffs, which are self-proving. The arbitrators should spot-check the diffs, and should also verify the claims that have been made, such as that Editor X was edit-warring and that Editor Y made personal attacks. The schedule for an arbitration case has a window between the closing of evidence and the beginning of the proposed decision for review by the arbitrators.

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

   No. That is, arbitrators are not exempt from due process, or arbitrators are subject to due process. If there is a substantial case of misconduct against an arbitrator, the other arbitrators should consider the evidence, with the accused arbitrator recused. If the ArbCom is unwilling or unable to deal with allegations of misconduct by one of their arbitrators, then the case could go to U4C, and that could start a process of intrusion into the English Wikipedia by the U4C.

Thank you for your answers Robert. To Q1: Perhaps if diffs are cherry picked and taken deliberately out of context the committee would not notice, and if their mind is made up already, they won't bother looking further. To Q2: It depends on the definition of 'substantial'. It could be extremely difficult to make a case against an Arb stick, U4C or no U4C.

Questions from casualdejekyll

2. You've been the sole person handling the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for longer than anyone can remember. What influenced your decision to attempt to switch gears and become an Arbitrator?

   I have from time to time been asked by various editors to consider running for ArbCom. As I have noted above, I think that some of the same skills are applicable to mediating content disputes and resolving conduct disputes. I think that I can provide even more service to Wikipedia as an arbitrator.

4. If you become an Arbitrator, will you continue to participate in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? (If the answer to the previous question is no, do you have any opinion on how and if Dispute Resolution can/should be continued?)

   If I am elected as an arbitrator, I will continue to assist at DRN, but will avoid taking cases that I think are likely to wind up at WP:ANI, because they could then wind up at arbitration, and I would have to recuse from any dispute that I had tried to mediate. There would need to be a call for volunteers at DRN, and I would be available to mentor new volunteers.

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   I edit Wikipedia to take part in a very large exercise in codifying human knowledge in a readable form.

Question from Paradise Chronicle

2. You were shortly involved in the notability discussion of Nataša Pirc Musar, an article which was draftified. The diff for the comment does not appear at the talk page history, but your signature is below so I assume its your comment. At the time, Musar was leading in the polls to the Presidential elections in Slovenia and formerly involved in the support of free expression at sure one of the highest state level, if not the highest. She later became Slovenias first female president. Of an average editor I wouldn't question your edit advising not to bring her back to main space, but you aspire to the highest authority for the Wikipedia community. Can you lead to any former example where a leading presidential candidate of the polls was rightfully deemed as not notable?

   I am not entirely sure that I understand what your question is. If you are asking me whether I made a mistake in September, I will say that I did not. I was stating how Wikipedia policy is applied to candidates for office, which is that candidates are very seldom considered to satisfy general notability if they did not already have articles before they came candidates. I advised not moving the article back to article space, based on how policy is normally applied. I see that it was moved to article space, and that she is now President-elect. I stated how Wikipedia policy is applied to candidates for office. I am not sure that there is a question. The diff for my comment is in the history of the article rather than the talk page. The AFC comments, which were on the draft talk page, were moved to the talk page when the draft was accepted.

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Do you support using juries, consisting of randomly-selected editors, to make many of the banning decisions at Wikipedia? I intensely dislike the current highly-centralized system, which is overworked, underpaid, and often more concerned with ending disputes than with whether that’s done fairly and in keeping with policy. This highly-centralized system is also unduly influenced by a cadre of editors who like to hang out at such proceedings, as well as influenced by hordes of dedicated enemies of the accused who make sure they have lots of input. Also noteworthy is the simple and basic fact that the most effective way for Wikipedia to censor content is to do so indirectly by banning users who favor that content. We can do better than this current system, and a jury of peers would be more deliberative, careful, and even-handed. Right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

   I tried to answer at length, and found that the template for questions and answers does not support formatted answers, so I have put my detailed answer in essay form in User:Robert McClenon/Jury Comments. To summarize, I think that juries are an interesting idea that should be discussed, but are likely not to be feasible because of the difficulty of obtaining if ensuring that the jurors both take the duty seriously and are neutral on highly contentious topics. In particular, I don't think juries are a feasible alternative to Arbitration Enforcement. Also, the policy that Wikipedia is not censored is commonly misunderstood. As I explain in my essay on Yelling Censorship, removal of content for reasons of due weight and WP:BALANCE is not censorship.

4. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

   Both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY are cogent essays applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but they come to different conclusions. My answer is that "It all depends" on the circumstances, but in general WP:NOTMANDY is correct that balance and due weight say that denials of allegations should be included in an article, with some exceptions. For instance, if the subject of an article was convicted of a felony, it is not necessary to state that they deny the charge, unless the trial and the plea of not guilty is described in detail. Normally the denial should be included. As a side comment, in the case that gave these essays their name, Ms. Rice-Davies was no more reliable than Lord Astor. His denial was self-serving, but her statement that they had an affair was also self-serving. It should be kept in mind, with regard to scandals and allegations, that some people may wish to disclaim involvement and some people may wish to claim involvement. She would say that, wouldn't she?

CaptainEek

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   An editor is involved when they are incapable of making objective decisions due to having been party to a dispute. The conflict could be over content, it could be over personality. The editor in question may feel there is no conflict, but the mere fact that they have been involved in the dispute is likely to to muddy their thinking. Of course, purely administrative actions don't make a person involved. Nor do straightforward actions breach involved. This last point has been contentious. Some have argued that if any admin could have done it, why was it necessary for the involved admin to do it? I think this interpretation would render the straightforward action exemption redundant. Just because any other admin could have done it does not mean that another admin would have acted timely.
   Regarding the Athaenara case, I voted that TNT was involved. They were Isabelle's nominator. Athaenara insulted Isabelle. TNT then checked Athaenara. The bond between nominator and nominee, in my experience, is very tight. That is pretty clear involvement to me. And TNT then made a foolish decision, which shows why we have the involved policy.
   Regarding the Manning case, I question its precedential value. The case is now 9 years old, and on a dubious topic. How we deal with trans subjects has fundamentally changed in the years since. I think the outcome, to restrict David Gerard's tool use rather than desysop him, was inventive, and I think we should have more such creative remedies.
   Climate is an even older case, at 12 years. I note that Lar was investigated for being involved, and had findings of fact regarding him, but the Committee failed to offer a remedy. Today, I imagine I'd at least vote for a warning or admonishment.
   All in all, involvement is a question that has reared its head repeatedly in recent years, and I have no doubt we will continue to see such problems.CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

   The future is uncertain, and that concerns me. My fear is that the Coordinating Committee will become some sort of global ArbCom. The reason that ArbCom works is because the buck stops with it. There is no higher level of appeal. While I don't want our processes to be court-like, ArbCom is much like a real world supreme court. Its decisions are final, which provides certainty to the community. But if suddenly ArbCom decisions would be appealable to the Coordinating Committee, we would lose significant local independence. We would be instead like a mid-level appellate court, subject to overturn by a Coordinating Committee with different values and understandings than EnWiki. I understand the need for the UCOC. But on projects where we are already effectively self governing, we don't need a seperate body for UCOC enforcement. We already have multiple possible UCOC enforcement venues: ArbCom, the administrators, the community. We self govern everyday, we can self govern the UCOC too.
   Now, section 3.1.1 of of the revised enforcement guidelines is promising: it seems to provide a focus for local governance. But 3.1.2 notes that "systematic failure to follow the UCoC" would be handled by the U4C. That is what worries me the most. It is ill defined. If an editor runs to U4C and claims that ArbCom is ignoring their claims, is that a systematic failure? Or instead do there need to be repeated cases? How easy will it be for a crafty troll to evade ArbCom and suck up the time of both ArbCom and U4C?
   Aside from that, I believe that we as a community need to have a frank internal discussion of how to handle the UCOC. I envision that much UCOC enforcement will be vested in the admins at AN/ANI. What they can't handle, ArbCom will. But ultimately, that is not up to me: it is up to the community. I think we'll need some brainstorming, and then an RfC, to determine whether we need new workflows, or if existing workflows are sufficient. Unless the community desires ArbCom to take on the responsibility, I would be inclined to leave most UCOC enforcement to the community, as we do with our existing practices. Regardless, I think the UCOC will be one of the big issues in the next few years, and I promise to champion the EnWiki community at every turn. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   I've always pronounced it "A-N-I". I always imagine the idea of someone being "hauled to ANI" (and perhaps being "keelhauled" at ANI should things go poorly for them...). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Joe Roe

2. In ArbCom's most recent case, you were the only arb that voted against removing an editor's CheckUser rights after a finding of fact (which you did support) that that editor had misused CheckUser. Why were you at odds with the rest of the committee in this case? – Joe (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Not all transgressions demand the same punishment. I agree that TNT made a foolish decision, and was INVOLVED. But I do not agree that the solution was to remove their CU rights. TNT expressed regret and apology. I just do not think the issue would have come up again. I respect the rest of the Committee, and understand that we disagreed. But I just don't see how removing TNT's permissions over a rather unique and stressful situation for which they had apologized and expressed understanding was productive.
   Beyond that, editors may read my vote at the case page CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   I'll in part copy my answer from 2020: "I don't think the struggles about infoboxes are truly over. But I do think the fierce and vitriolic "infobox wars" are over. Infoboxes are here to stay, and editors have been using civil discussion to solve infobox issues for some years. It has been more than seven years since that case, and the case was only revisited in 2015 to loosen some editing restrictions."
   To that, I'll add that I don't think ArbCom is the body best suited to solve the problem for the most part. I was party to a few infobox disputes over the last couple of years, notably at American Civil War, which is one of my most edited articles. We had a long running dispute about when the Civil War ended, and since the date is disputed, what to put in the infobox. It was contentious at times, but the regular editing processes of dispute resoloution, RfCs, and not edit warring, led to an accepted consensus. Perhaps there are more rancorous infobox conversations happening, but I am not aware of them. Short of the return of the full scale infobox wars, I just don't see what more ArbCom could or should do. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Thank you for your thoughts, and "struggles" is a good term ;) - In 2015, all restrictions were suspended, and I hoped that regular editing processes would have been used from then on. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   From a content perspective, no comment. It is not an Arb's job to determine whether the outcome was "right". From a behavior standpoint, it certainly got a little spicy at times, but I think the normal processes of Wikipedia won out. An RfC was held, it had lots of commenters, discussion was mostly controlled, and there was a thoughtful and considered close. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from BilledMammal

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

   Only if there was no EnWiki policy on point, and if it was necessary to ensure EnWiki independence (i.e. prevent the issue from escalating to the U4C). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

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

   I'm unsure what you mean by investigate. The Committee expects evidence to be more than just accusations: there must be diffs, screenshots, emails, and so on. So yes, the Committee must go further than just accusations. But I imagine your question means must the Committee go beyond what the diffs and so forth that it has been presented. I.e., must the Arbs do their own independent investigation? I think there is no such duty, but that Arbs may do so if they wish. The Committee relies on the fact finding abilities of the community and parties. The commenters and parties, being closer to the dispute, generally have a better feel for what is relevant. But that doesn't mean the Committee can never do its own looking. The Committee frequently does its own checkusering in certain issues, and Arbs have occasionally found pieces of evidence that others have not. Requiring or forbidding Arbs from doing independent investigation would be foolish: we are in a happy middle ground that works. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   No. Sometimes the Committee must deal with its own. Take Alex Shih as the prototypical example. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Your answers are perfectly satisfactory, expecially Q2. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   Its fun! I edit Wikipedia as a hobby, and I do it because I enjoy it. It feels good to be providing free knowledge that can be used around the world. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Izno

2. As a current or former arbitrator, you know ArbCom gets busy with appeals, casework, and other emails, as a matter of course. ArbCom also tries to improve its own processes or procedures in any given year to ease community use of the process or to decrease the amount of work it does. Now that discretionary sanctions are reformed (for some value of reformed :), what are the one or two things large things, or a few more small things, you think ArbCom should work on this year to improve its processes? Izno (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   For starters, I'm not sure we're yet done with DS. This year's reforms were a lot of fixes, but I've chatted with Kevin and I think that more could be done with DS reform. Such changes would probably be pretty major though, so need some careful consideration.
   Beyond DS reform, I want to focus on our backend. ArbCom receives a truly legendary amount of emails every year, and its easy for things to get lost or fall by the wayside. There was some discussion this year about getting the WMF to maybe buy/provide to us some actually decent email management software (our current software is...not great). We kind of hit a wall with that, but I'd like to put some more energy into it, because having better software would make a difference. I really want to focus on ways to make the Committee more responsive privately, and to keep our workload streamlined.
   In that vein, there was also discussion about devolving most CU appeals to the CU's themselves. That would require some considerable community discussion first, but I'm open to exploring the idea. More than 80% of the appeals we get are just such obvious declines or trolls that it shouldn't take so much Arb time to rubberstamp declines on them. Perhaps even just changing some internal procedures might work to fix that. As a single Arb, I can't pretend to have the entire solution: its a collaborative process and I'd look forward to working with the other Arbs to make the Committee more effective. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   I had not previously read them, but I have just done so. First, both of them are essays, and thus not policy. Second, I'm not certain what this has to do with Arb elections. It really feels like a content question: whether to include or not include something in an article. ArbCom is not in the content business. Nor for that matter is it generally in the content policy business. ArbCom focuses on editor behavior, and while it may require that editors hold true to NPOV, I somewhat doubt that it would ever hear an issue about an editor's good faith, non-disruptive interpretation of policy. If say a user was favoring MANDY or NOTMANDY disruptively, the issue wouldn't be which one was right, but rather that the user was violating a behavioral standard. As is alluded to in Gerda Arendt's questions, the Committee has dealt with feuding sides of a policy issue before: the Infobox wars. The Committee didn't take a side, because that would have been wrong. Instead, the Committee sanctioned the most disruptive users, and made it clear the remaining users that they were being held to a high standard. If the Committee had to hear an issue around MANDY, I imagine the outcome would look very similar to Infoboxes: sanctions, but the Committee doesn't choose a side. That's how it should be: the Committee should never accept the temptation to declare a content winner, no matter how right they might seem.
   With that said, personally, I think MANDY/NOTMANDY is a false dichotomy. We print what reliable sources say. Sometimes they'll mention denials, sometimes they won't. We should be following what they're doing, not trying to re-invent the wheel. If there is a question of DUE weight, the quality and extent of coverage must be examined. There isn't a rigid yes or no answer in all cases. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

BoldLuis

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involved administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Izno

2. Can you summarize in your own words what the scope and responsibilities of ArbCom include? Can you explain why you think you are qualified for each of those duties? Izno (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Beyond My Ken

2. Can you explain how, exactly, your life experience as a "jurist" would help you if your were elected to the Arbitartion Committee? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Considering your relatively short tenure as an editor (4 years, 8 months) and the low number of edits you've made (5,014), and that you are not an admin (I don't believe any non-admin has ever been elected to ArbCom) your putting youself up as a candidate for the Arbitration Committee does indeed seem to be a WP:BOLD choice. What in your experience as a Wikipedian do you feel qualifies you for the position?

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

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

Questions from InsaneHacker

2. Asking this since you mentioned your experience as a jurist in your candidate statement. While many external observers and indeed our own encyclopedia article on ArbCom refer to it as a court of last resort or a quasi-judicial body, some also strongly object to the characterization of ArbCom as a court, something which is also reflected in WP:NOTCOURT. Can you name some ways in which the ArbCom process functions differently from classic conceptions of a court of law?

Just one question for now. InsaneHacker (💬) 10:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

Questions from Paradise Chronicle

2. Thanks for volunteering, yet having compared your candidacy with some of the others, I believe we can still vamp up your candidacy a bit. Could you maybe point out one conflict which you were able to successfully solve on Wikipedia?

Question from BilledMammal

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

Question from Pppery

2. Given that you've (at the time of this comment) made no edits in the last 7 days and not answered any of the other questions, do you expect to be active and engaged enough to respond to arbitration business?

Questions from Kudpung

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

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

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from PerryPerryD

2. Hello, I would like to know what your stance is on the Wikimedia Guidelines, and in short, What your goal is as an arbitrator. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from EnPassant

1. I noticed your earliest edits from 2018 included successful creation of a Category. I'm wondering if you've had accounts prior to BoldLuis? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Moneytrees

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Kont Dracula

2. Thank you for volunteering to serve on this committee. It has become a real concern for me that many articles on Wikipedia are being edited to reflect the personal political biases of editors. To put it bluntly, some seem to see the site as a place to engage in outright activism, rather than simply give a concise, objective and accurate background information on subjects. Is this a concern that you have? If not, could you point me in the direction of a candidate who does have these concerns? Good luck with your campaign, politics can be nasty

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Red-tailed hawk, here's a whole AN post I started with a violation of INVOLVED as one of its key points; an admin unblocked an editor they were friends with, and the unblock led to problems down the road. My basic explanation of INVOLVED is that you should not take administrative action regarding editors you are friends with/had conflict with, and you should not take action in topic areas/discussions you have extensively edited/had significant participation in. There are exceptions in taking an obvious action that "any administrator would've taken" or interacting with someone in a purely "administrative role"; for example, it is not a violation of INVOLVED if I block someone, I've previously warned for copyright violations. As for the cases cited, I agree with the FOFs at Reversal and reinstatement; TNT was clearly involved with regards to Athaenara and it would've been best to avoid administrative actions related to her. While the admin in the Manning case would be right in most of their actions, it was inadvisable to take them given their involvement in the dispute, and unfortunately likely contributed to it becoming more heated. Climate change is one of those ultra-complex bible-sized cases from before my time; from a short reading and vague familiarity with the area, my understanding is that one of the issues was that there were admins taking action in a topic area they had extensively edited in, which would run afoul of INVOLVED. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Izno

2. As an arb, you will have to deal with messes which often have a lot of reading attached to them. Some of them will be the reasonably ordered messes most cases are. Some of them won't be. One mess I regularly think about is this case request (last revision before archival and first revision). Assuming (for simplicity's sake) that the entire discussion was held onwiki, can you share some thoughts on how you might have responded to the original case request, the changes in aggregate that occurred while the request open, and the ultimate case request? Izno (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Izno, that was indeed a mess. On the initial case request regarding the COIN thread, I would lean decline as although that was a difficult discussion the community could handle it and eventually did. The way the case request mutated, with Jehochman posting Icewhiz's piece and the scope shifting to the APL topic as a whole... definitely changed things. It is such a mess that it would be tempting to decline it and start over with a new request on the issue, but I know the request phase was draining enough for editors. I think Wugapodes' extended comment here reflects my feelings. Burnout is being induced in and driving away valuable editors, and I'm of the opinion that the remedies only slightly mediate issues. I would lean towards a very focused case, and try and avoid "kicking the can" back to the community again. I think the committee responding to ARCA requests in the area was good though, although it seems to be underused. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Wbm1058

2. You were appointed as an Arbcom trainee clerk on 8 January 2020 but – still a trainee 20 months later – resigned on 17 September 2021. Why weren't you promoted to full-clerk status? Why did you resign? Describe your tenure as a clerk trainee and how that influenced your decision to run for a seat as an arbitrator. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Wbm1058 I'm glad you asked... in August 2020 I was told all I had left to do in order to become a full clerk was clerk and close a full case. The next full case was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda, which I clerked but it ended up being dismissed by motion without clerk input, so no promotion for me. The next case I got to clerk was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics, but I resigned shortly before it closed. Why did I resign? There were a lot of factors behind why. I would say the most important ones are: 1. I don't like and don't really use IRC, which is something that is all but required to be a clerk. 2. I was severely burned out and frustrated with the site at the time, and was under a significant amount of real life and on-wiki stress, which you can get a real sense of at this AN discussion 3. I never really enjoyed the job– the mailing list was cool and tweaking case requests could be fun, but a lot of work revolved around making very specific edits to templates on obscure pages and reminding parties about obtuse rules, which I found boring. I found the role high-stress and low reward. 4. The role restricts what you're able to say and do greatly, in ways it might not for an Arb. It encourages you to be less active in dispute resolution and to "be quiet". 5. I felt I had made too many mistakes in the role, like this block for example, which while necessary and vindicated by the user being an LTA, wasn't needed at the time, and template/procedure mistakes like initially forgetting to include a motion at general sanctions. I know that was minor but I felt guilty about it. 6. Me and someone involved with Arbcom/the clerk team were on bad terms and did not get along with each other at the time. After my resignation I received high praise from an Arb and was told I should consider running in 2022. I had no desire to become an Arb at any point prior and thought the idea of me becoming one was far-fetched, but after thinking about it for a while I decided to go for it. I would say my experience outside of clerking actually influenced me more since it had more to do with dispute resolution and solving issues instead of paperwork and templates. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

   Before answering this question, I want to point out User:Barkeep49/UCoC Revision, which contains updates on the ongoing revisions of the Universal Code of Conduct. I'll also note I opposed the UCoC enforcement guidelines. I see it as redundant to the behavioral guidelines that we already have and the m:Terms of use. TheresNoTime, there is the real concern that the U4C (which has been referred to as the "Global Arbcom") would become some sort of high court that would harm the community's governance, and that it could encourage a kind of "forumshopping" or incentivize frivolous/otherwise time-wasting complaints. I will do what I can to prevent this from becoming an issue. I'm still half of the mind that the U4C will end up not really going anywhere or having a real effect on the English Wikipedia. Reading m:Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines, there's still a lot of vague language and ill-defined procedures. How many members will the U4C have? How long are their terms? "The Wikimedia Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members..."- why? Who? Can the U4C block/globally block accounts? In practice, I don't there's anything necessarily wrong with a sort of metawiki body that serves to investigate and make reports on the most entrenched and unsolvable of Wikipedia's problems, but we know the foundation is not always in touch with the community and that these global bodies, such as the Ombuds commission, are ambiguous and obtuse in their actions. I've had my faith in them shaken a bit recently; earlier this year, I blocked someone who had served on the Ombuds commission during 2021 for copyright violations. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   Annie. Moneytrees Industries®™© will not be taking further questions on this matter. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from InsaneHacker

2. When you successfully ran for adminship in 2020, one of the concerns stated by opposers – aside from lack of content creation experience – was an alleged lack of maturity. However, you've since had the bit for almost three years, and a lot can happen in that time. What factors or incidents do you think led to the impression of lack of maturity, and do you think you have addressed those concerns since becoming an administrator?

   InsaneHacker, great question– I wrote at length about my Rfa at this debrief in 2021, which gives a pretty good overview of my experience and feelings. The main concern for "maturity" at my RfA was a then 18-month-old angry retirement notice I had placed on my user page. It was an edgy, frustrated "I quit" message largely informed by real life issues and angst rather than any actual dispute I had been in. There were some additional silly comments I had made and things I had done, and I'm sure the username "Money emoji" didn't really help. I've grown a lot in the years since; I was 17 when I ran, I'm 20 now. There's a notable difference between the Money emoji in the questions at the RfA and the Moneytrees here or here, for examples. My writing has improved and ability to collect and present evidence has improved massively, and I've become a lot more serious over time. I think I've overcome any serious charges of "immaturity" in my largely uncontroversial work since. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. I hope you'll indulge me moving from a very concrete question to more of a big picture question. The Arbitration Committee has a special status on the English Wikipedia and indeed in outside coverage of Wikipedia in general, where it is sometimes referred to as the Wikipedia Supreme Court. One might get the impression that every version of Wikipedia has an equivalent body. However, according to meta:Arbitration Committee, only twelve Wikimedia projects, whereof eleven are language versions of Wikipedia, currently have such a body. Presumably all the other language versions get by with an equivalent to WP:AN and its sub-boards.
   Do you think the English Wikipedia could get by without the Arbitration Committee? If not, why do other projects seemingly function fine without having one (size, homo-/heterogeneity, culture, something else)?

   InsaneHacker, I've thought about this before. As arbitration policies have changed and the community has become more willing to sanction users over the years, Arbcom has accepted less and less cases. I think it's a possibility in the distant future that Arbcom may become a more advisory group, with admin cases/larger disputes being handled by the community, private block appeals being handled by functionaries, and special cases being handled by the WMF. In that case I'd think the community would get by fine without having Arbcom as the end-all for disputes. Regardless, I think the reason most projects don't have an Arbcom/have a different type of one is because of size and cultural differences (m:List of Wikipedias has some information to cross-reference with). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just one question for now. InsaneHacker (💬) 10:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Added second question. InsaneHacker (💬) 23:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   Hello Gerda Arendt. The last major arguments over infoboxes that I remember were in later 2020. Checking talk pages like Talk:Frank Sinatra, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 6, it seems large conflicts over them have simmered to smaller-scale disagreements, if there are any at all. I wouldn't call them "wars". Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Thank you, and I also wouldn't call them wars. Thank you for looking at particular conflicts, beyond the arb cases. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   Gerda Arendt, although some comments are snippy and unhelpful I think comparing it to previous discussions and the lack of spillover to ANI/AE/etc. shows that temperatures have decreased in the area. Of course time will tell if there is a significant dispute in the future, but I feel it is unlikely at this time. I have a positive outlook that things will be ok. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from BilledMammal

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

   That's an interesting question BilledMammal, given the overlap between our guidelines and policies and the UCoC I would think it'd be usually pointless to cite it, but there very well could be a situation in the future where referencing it would make sense. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Beyond My Ken

2. Given your answer above to Wbm1058 about the stresses which caused you to resign as an ArbCom clerk, why do you think you would be able to deal with the -- presumably much greater -- stresses of being an Arbitrator?

   Beyond My Ken, thank you for asking. One major thing is that the clerk workload is different from the committee workload; you are not required to use IRC for the committee, and the bloodshot-inducing template editing doesn't come with the role. I am much more mature and in a better place than I was during that period of my life. At that time, my real-life workload was extreme and unmanageable (I was being encouraged to sleep as little as possible, if at all), and the amount of time I was spending at CCI and Wikipedia disputes was also unmanageable. My work ethic didn't take into account proper self care, and everything around me was incentivizing ignoring it. "But that won't matter, all this work will pay off"- but it won't if you keep working yourself like that. So I had to take a step back and rid myself of any unnecessary stressors, including my not-so-illustrious career as an Arb clerk. I got out of that workload and I know for certain I will never have to work that much in my life again, and I know how I will manage the workload from the committee and my other responsibilities. I'm fully prepared for the workload and increased scrutiny, and if I didn't think I was I wouldn't run.

4. Given that you've only been an admin for 2 years and 9 months, do you think you are experienced enough to be an effective Aribtrator?

   Yes, I think close to three years as an admin is a good amount. I've learned and grown a lot over the years, I've been to a lot of incredible places most editors don't go to. I was told a year ago I was ready— I am confident I am ready. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear

2. Currently, outgoing arbs retain their CUOS rights indefinitely (subject to the normal). Would you be open to a change of process so that outgoing arbs only retained their CUOS rights until the next CUOS application round, where they would have to request and be granted them in order to retain them?

   Nosebagbear, To be able to properly answer this question, I feel like I'd need decent tenure as a functionary, which I do not have. I'm aware some functionaries and people who edit around SPI think this should be policy; as I currently stand, I guess I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I'm unsure how much of a pressing issue it is. I'm under the impression that most Arbs who don't really use CU/OS give up their bits upon their term ending now and days, so requiring a reapproval seems kind of pointless to me. If former Arbs are consistently being crummy functionaries, then I would understand the desire for a reappointment process, but I wouldn't really know anything about that. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

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

   Hello Kudpung– of course thorough investigation and reading is needed when it comes to diffs/evidence presented in a case. There's little point in having a vetted evidence phase if that is not done. As someone who has clerked and read over several cases, I know that not all aspirations/supposed evidence ends up making it into the PD, whether because it's out of scope or because the editing displayed was not noteworthy or sanctionable.

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

   No, they are not. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean existing conflicts and social connections cloud judgement and impede accountability like they do elsewhere on Wikipedia. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I asked all candidates the same questions Thank you for your answers, Moneytrees. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   lettherebedarklight, because it is important to the world and it is important to me. I enjoy editing and have learned an immense amount about not just the world but also how things really work, and I want to continue to do so. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   Anythingyouwant, I've read both. I'm honestly not really invested in the conflict between the two essays. When it comes to denials about x y and z, I think their inclusion needs to take into account what sources say, due weight, and mindfulness around BLPs, and that these values will naturally vary between articles. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Femke

2. Being a party to an Arbcom case is usually highly stressful. It's no surprise editors often choose to leave the project after an outcome like a warning or desysop. What do you think the committee can and should do to make the experience less painful for involved editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

   Femke, being on time with announcements and decisions and taking enough time to make a thoughtful vote while also avoiding elongating the process are good starts. The committee has had shortened evidence phases in recent cases, which I think can be used to mitigate stress for narrower disputes such as ones focusing on the conduct of one or a specific few editors. Avoiding actions creating an impression of a "forgone conclusion" is good too. A tight and thorough proposed decision and putting less weight on/outright removing "peanut gallery" type comments is something I'd support. I remember from my clerk days that a lot of ink gets spilled over cases, but a good deal of it doesn't have much effect on the proposed decision. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Primefac

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Being INVOLVED in a situation means that one has a vested interest in the topic at hand, generally indicated by voicing an opinion or otherwise showing that one's interactions are more than purely administrative in nature. In the three cases you mention, the Findings quite clearly indicate that the administrators in question met that criteria in the areas in which they were taking administrative action.

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

   Honestly, I do not see it changing significantly. From my understanding of the policy, ArbCom will still be the first "port of call" for intractable disputes, with the U4C mainly being required for a "systematic failure to follow the UCoC". I do not doubt that there will be cases filed with them that go "over our heads" so to speak, or go there as an appeal for an ArbCom decision, but our day-to-day operations are unlikely to change. I suspect, though, we will need to add another meeting to our schedules so we can discuss English Wikipedia-specific content with the U4C to make sure everything is copacetic.

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

   If you are asking me for a proclamation about the "right" way to pronounce it, I will have to respectfully decline, as everyone has their own idiosyncrasies for how they read words. Personally, I read it as A-N-I.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   With the caveat that I am not a regular at WP:ANI or WP:AN3 and thus am not "down in the trenches" with regards to edit warring and editorial disputes that overspill from article talk pages: no, I do not think we have "wars" any more of the scale that led up to the 2013 or 2018 cases. I do recognise that there are still disagreements about infoboxes, their placement, and what is included in them (having been involved in quite a few of the last type), but I believe the DS in place (and the vanishing of one of the major players from the 2018 case) has somewhat calmed the waters (to mix metaphors). I do not think we will ever reach a point where everyone will agree on infoboxes (or any subject, for that matter), so it really becomes a question of managing incivility and disruption; that being said, I would say that some level of stability has been reached, and thus do not have any better ideas without having more information about what needs fixing.

4. Thank you, and I agree that we have calmer waters. I believe DS has made no sense, because I witnessed not one instance of them being helpful, but many where they were presented to harmless users who didn't even know there was any conflict. I smiled about the "vanishing", because in RfCs, the two major players who "vanished" tend to still feature prominently. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   Compared to the vitriol I have seen in past RFCs (infobox-related or otherwise) this is fairly tame. Yes, there are back-and-forths by opinionated editors who feel they must argue the point to death, but that will happen in just about any contentious discussion. I do not think that we as a community will ever agree on the infobox issue, so at the very least having a framework for dealing with the issue is a Good Thing.

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from BilledMammal

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

   I cannot foresee a reason not to.

Questions from Kudpung

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

   If evidence of any variety is presented without diffs (or in the case of private evidence, an email to the Committee) then it should be discounted if not ignored entirely. We do still have a duty to make sure that said diffs are accurate representations of the given statement, though.

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

   No.

Thank you for your answers. I asked all candidates the same questions. Wrg to Q2, you could have elaborated by citing from examples, but the one word is the most important. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   Momentum, mostly. I like helping folks out, I enjoy editing templates and articles, and I have yet to find a reason to stop editing. I enjoy being a part of this weird and wonderful community, even though at times it can be stressful or frustrating.

Questions from Izno

2. As a current or former arbitrator, you know ArbCom gets busy with appeals, casework, and other emails, as a matter of course. ArbCom also tries to improve its own processes or procedures in any given year to ease community use of the process or to decrease the amount of work it does. Now that discretionary sanctions are reformed (for some value of reformed :), what are the one or two things large things, or a few more small things, you think ArbCom should work on this year to improve its processes? Izno (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   On the Committee end of things, I really, truly believe that our appeals-via-email workflow is garbage and we need a better system, even though I know we have been trying and testing out new things for the better part of two years now (at least). Even if it requires opening up a different page, we should have an easy-to-use platform for listing and discussing appeals. The WMF has tools and options that they have been hesitant to give us access to, and I think it just takes some creative appealing to get them to relent. On the "small" side of things, I have spent the last few months going through and cataloguing our ArbWiki pages to sort out what is actually there (and hopefully make navigation a bit easier). I can probably get it all done by year's end, but if not I would like to keep working on workflow maintenance there.

   On the Community side of things, I am still interested in looking at potentially converting cases into "c2:DocumentMode", wherein the clerks/Arbs maintain the primary document while threaded discussion and new ideas can be presented on the respective talk pages. One of my largest issues with our current system is the non-threaded nature of discussion, which I do realise has some benefits but makes reading an actual discussion rather onerous.

   Also — and this is not my idea but I support it — I think we might be trying to shift CU-block-appeals back to the Community, or at the very least the CUs, as a good portion of {{CheckUser block}} appeals are so trivial that any CU should be able to decline it without the Committee needing to waste time on it.

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   I have neither heard nor read either of these essays before now. Given that the very policy which relates to these two essays is currently subject to an RFC about its specific wording, anything I say today could very well be invalidated if the RFC ends up supporting the opposite viewpoint. NOTMANDY seems, though, to be more concerned with the validity of any statement given, rather than the simple nature of the existence of the statement. MANDY seems to be making the case for not including a denial simply because it was made, while NOTMANDY is saying that a denial plus the circumstances around it are needed. I do not believe that one precludes the other, as the latter case would not be a MANDY issue.

L235

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Thank you for your question. Out of respect for the specific people involved in those cases who didn't ask to be brought up here (many of whom are still editing), and because I am less familiar with some cases than others, I will speak to the principles in these cases and not the individuals in question.

   I was a drafting arbitrator on the Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block case and stand by the decision in that case. I think the principles and findings in that case were not particularly disputable; that case did not involve a difficult application of policy.

   The principles and findings in the Manning naming dispute case seem reasonable. Using tools – especially to take such non-urgent action as lowering protection – after opining on the relevant content dispute seems like a violation to me.

   Principles 15 and 16 in the Climate change case seem like reasonable reflections of 2010 policy to me. I don't think I would have voted for Principle 17, as written, because I think it uses less precise language than I would prefer. Because the findings of fact are written broadly without reference to specific incidents, I do not have a good basis to judge the findings of fact in that case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

   The original vision of a universal code of conduct was not a bad idea. Many non-enwiki projects have poorly-developed conduct enforcement pathways that turn out to be insufficient, and the UCoC could play a useful role in stepping up that enforcement. My understanding of the original intent behind the UCoC was to have a minimal impact on projects like the English Wikipedia. It's hard to say whether that will in fact be true when the U4C is established, and I think we will have to see how the U4C ends up getting selected and how it interprets its own role. I am heartened that the U4C is explicitly a "co-equal body" with ArbCom under the Guidelines and will not have jurisdiction to review enwiki's or ArbCom's decisions unless there are "systemic failures" (a high bar that I hope enwiki will never meet). I would have preferred more significant restrictions on the U4C's ability to do so (e.g. a 2/3 vote to find "systemic failures") but I am hopeful that the current guidelines are satisfactory. In any event, good luck to the U4C. That seems like a difficult job and I hope they get good people on it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   I say A-N-I in my head, but when talking with Annie-camp editors do find myself switching to Annie. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from MJL

2. Can you please expand on this statement: I will advocate for streamlining the clerks' current tasks while exploring ways in which the clerks can relieve ArbCom's administrative burden in more areas. [emphasis added] What kind of administrative burdens do you have in mind? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Thanks for the question – I've been looking forward to the opportunity to discuss my priority areas in greater depth.

   The great majority of the Committee's work takes place by email, and not a particularly well-organized email system either. Here are some illustrative (but non-exhaustive) examples of administrative burden currently being shouldered by arbitrators when it comes to our email system:

   • There is no systematized way to keep track of what is pending and what has been resolved – other than block appeals, which are manually tracked in a hard-to-update table. I try to keep track of what needs attention, and so do other arbs – each imperfectly, and with much duplicated effort. This frequently leads to matters falling through the cracks.
   • When I sit down to do arb work, there is a lot of wasted effort in triaging where to spend my time. Ideally, as an arb, I'd receive a report every so often listing what things need my attention and what I have and have not voted on yet; instead, when I sit down to do arb work, my first action is to click around in my email inbox for things that seems urgent and important enough.
   • Inbound emails require ackowledgements. Appeals need to be responded to with our standard questionnaire. Other kinds of correspondence often requires very routine responses that nonetheless take time to draft. These are all things that collectively take a lot of time for arbitrators to handle.

   Now, some of these things clerks could probably never help with – some of our correspondence relates to matters internal to the committee, for arbitrator eyes only. But I think there are ways to explore delegating some of these tasks. After all, all but one of the current active clerks are indeed NDA'd functionaries. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   I'm not a huge fan of the "infobox war" framing – anyone who genuinely thinks of themselves as waging an "infobox war" on one side or another has lost sight of why we're here (to collaboratively build an encyclopedia) and should probably not be editing about infoboxes. Anyway, like I wrote in 2020, I haven't personally been involved in infobox disputes. From my vantage point and without having proactively searched for problems, while there is still disagreement in the community about the usefulness of infoboxes on particular articles, there haven't been widespread infobox conduct issues since the Civility case. This is a first impression, of course, and just like with everything else, if anyone thinks a new case is necessary I'll set aside my first impressions and make a decision based on the evidence presented. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Thank you, and I never liked the "wars" framing for disagreements. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   I think I generally feel that RfCs like this are a poor allocation of editor time and effort, but I understand why our dispute resolution system relies on time-consuming RfCs for certain disputes. As long as there isn't a clear trend of folks abusing the RfC process or trying to attrition out others, or a sense that the process is otherwise breaking down, I don't think this kind of RfC rises to the level of an ArbCom problem. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Questions from El_C

2. Did I hear someone mention infoboxes? Erm, anyway, in regards to the role of clerks, something which you devote the most time in both your statement and answer (to MJL). I'd like to ask you about about the same thing, but from a different angle. You end The clerk system bullet point with having clerks relieve ArbCom's administrative burden in more areas.
   My angled question is: what about clerks relieving editors' burden in more areas, also? A couple of days ago at AN (full discussion: live/permalink, ARCA) I spoke to you about the high ceiling of navigating various ArbCom requests and queries. That the process is not nearly accessible enough, even to veteran editors experienced in editing the DS area (like my party at ARCA).
   I had said: I think it would make sense to have something along the line of clerks assisting users, who, like in this instance, were able to accomplish community consensus for their proposal to add/adjust an existing ArbCom sanctions regimes (diff). You did not reply to that, so let me press you now, and do so even further. How about having Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Noticeboard serve as such a platform? Featured prominently as such a platform? Because, even with simplified templates (Inshallah!), the processes, procedure, and just general orientation, can still be daunting. Receiving assistance for requests (as opposed to complaints at WP:AE), is that effort something you could see yourself standing behind? Even spearheading? Anyway, sorry for the length of this, I realize I asked a lot of questions (I'm allowed a million, right?), but hopefully, you will bring it all together in your answer. Yours, El_C 14:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

   Hi El C. Great to see you here. I didn't see your response at AN, but this is important to me, so thanks for highlighting it here. WT:AC/C already informally serves as that platform for help (if you go there and ask for help someone will definitely help you) but if it would help, I would champion making that "official". The good news is that we don't even need a Committee motion to do so – an internal discussion among the clerks and arbs would suffice to e.g. change the text at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header to highlight WT:AC/C. I'd feel weird starting such a discussion right now during ACE (like I'm using my current position in a way other candidates can't), but if an arbitrator or clerk thinks this is a good idea they should feel free to do so. Otherwise, I will start such a discussion after ACE is over if I'm still affiliated with the Committee either as an arbitrator or, if I'm unsuccessful at this election, as a clerk.

   Making the Committee's processes more accessible and understandable has been a priority for me during my first term. It's for that reason that I've put so much emphasis during WP:DS2022 on templates and procedural documents, and said that a procedural change that I proposed which would enable those improvements may actually lead to some of the most important improvements to the system. I've also internally proposed other process improvements like creating a wizard for those appealing their blocks to ArbCom rather than expecting folks to be email in a complete appeal, up to our standards, wholly unguided. We should try to eliminate every barrier to accessing the arbitration process that does not serve a purpose. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

2. More a follow up than a question. Yes, definitely intended for after the ACE, as a 'campaign promise,' rather than anything during. Good answers; good ideas; good commitment that inspires confidence. At the pes-same-ist time, I just hope that a meaningful shift to greater accessibility does happen with the next ArbCom. Because not a lot has changed for the better in that regard during this past Committee. So I submit to you that it'll require drive and tenacity (tenacity to keep badgering other committee members about it!). Otherwise, it might not meaningfully happen this time around, either. Though, WP:DS2022 is a good sendoff, and it does seem poised to bring us a good way forward. Still, some areas might get 'stuck' in half-measures, with a considerable Arb ceiling thereby still persisting. So, I'll also add, vigilance to watch for and to identify those, and to correct when needed. Either way, you got my vote! 🗳️ El_C 18:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

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

   I would agree that the Committee has a responsibility to ensure that it's basing decisions on appropriate evidence. That means that only evidence that has probative value for a finding of fact should be considered when voting on that finding of fact, and the Committee needs to do enough checking to ensure this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   Both normatively and (generally) descriptively, no. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I asked all candidates the same questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   Thanks for the question. I edit for the same reason as I give at the start of my candidate statement: I love our project and what we stand for. We today provide high-quality information through an open, volunteer, consensus-based system to the world for free — an incredible feat and one worth preserving. On my userpage I go into a bit more depth: I believe in our project. I believe in our vision, that of a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. I believe that our work makes the world a better place every day, and as long as I believe that I will dedicate my time and energy to this project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

   I had not read them before you asked this question. I generally believe that we should present any views found in reliable secondary sources in proportion with their prevalence in those sources as required by WP:UNDUE. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   INVOLVED is one of our most important admin policies, and also one of our vaguest. The "any reasonable administrator" exception is defined in a long history of case law at both community noticeboards and ArbCom—some of which reminds me of the "uncertainty and manipulability" one academic saw in the test adopted in a Supreme Court case I wrote about, but which may be best summed up in the Hobbes quote excerpted at INVOLVED: "No man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause." If something could reasonably be seen as an administrator or arbitrator's "own cause", they should not be acting with hat on in that scenario. (Emphasis "reasonably", and "own cause" in the sense of "having a stake in it", not just having an opinion. Attempts to impute a personal stake based on speculation or innuendo should be disregarded, and consistently have been by both the community and ArbCom.) INVOLVED also has a—well, I don't want to lean too hard on the legal terms, but dare I say a penumbra: situations that may be nominally exempt but where it's still best to avoid admin action. This is acknowledged in the policy itself: Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. (I was reminded of that myself recently... More on that in future answers.)

   I'm not going to comment on specific decisions, particularly the first of those three, as I would have recused in that case had I been on the Committee for it. I will say that, generally, I like where ArbCom's INVOLVED jurisprudence stands. It's important to understand that, of all the big-deal admin policies, it's one of the less bright lines, and there are situations where content work and admin work blur together, e.g. removing BLPvio from an article and then protecting it or blocking the user responsible. ArbCom has recognized this by being generally less inclined to first-offense desysop for INVOLVED actions where there's any amount of mitigation, relative to more blatant INVOLVED actions or other big admin no-nos like wheel-warring. On the other hand, for the truly unambiguous stuff, like blocking a good-faith content-dispute opponent, a first-offense desysop is solidly on the table, and should be. When real life people learn I'm a Wikipedia admin (look, it's a decent icebreaker), I often have to explain to them that no, I don't have any special authority in content matters. It's very important that that remain true, and ArbCom has an important role in keeping things that way.

Questions from Starship.paint

2. Noting your six-month tenure as admin, and within the last month, you were involved in an incident with Volunteer Marek where you partially blocked him from a page, Volunteer Marek protested, you called it the most unbecoming conduct I've seen from an experienced user in response to a block, the dispute continued on his talk page, and you site blocked Volunteer Marek and removed talkpage access. According to Newyorkbrad, the site block was unwarranted and should be overturned ... Adverse comments by sanctioned users against sanctioning admins are part of the territory ... it can be especially escalatory for an admin who perceives herself as the target of an attack to place the block, except in cases of gross abuse or harassment, and this was not that, and the removal of talkpage access was unneccesary. Subsequently you said you miscalculated badly, restored talkpage access after soliciting community input, while another admin removed the siteblock.
   
   Having made an error in judgment so recently, and yet continued to run for ArbCom, how can voters be sure that your judgment has vastly improved to become an ArbCom member who should handle disputes well? starship.paint (exalt) 00:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I would hope that the community sees my willingness to seek and heed feedback about my actions as indicative of good judgment, not bad, so I'm not sure how to answer this question, with the presuppositions it has. Also, to be clear, I reversed the siteblock myself; the intervention of another admin (with my support) was to remove the partial block as "time served".

Questions from Rschen7754

2. Going off your RFA and the aforementioned incident, some might say that you seem to get involved in a lot of controversy. Do you think this is true? How would this affect a potential term on ArbCom? --Rschen7754 01:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I don't think that's true, no. Most of what I do is content work. Most of the rest is routine admin work. When I've taken "non-routine" admin actions (DS/GS enforcement, blocks of experienced users, etc.), I have with one singular exception avoided any significant controversy, even with actions where I was braced for it (e.g. my indefblock of Philip Cross or my tempblock of BrownHairedGirl). I feel bad about that one exception. I don't want that to get lost here. I apologized to Marek, and he responded with a compliment about an article I'd written, and I was glad we got a resolution to that extent. There's also one non-admin action I've taken that I knew would be controversial, which was proposing the siteban of Athaenara. I didn't like the idea of causing further drama there—it was the first top-level AN/I thread I'd started since 2013. But it was a conversation I felt needed to happen, and I thought better it come from someone who could make a case beyond "ban her for believing the wrong thing".

   So, while I don't deny I've been involved in a few controversies, I think if you look at the totality of what I do here, it adds up to well less controversy than most similarly-situated editors. I dislike conflict, and spend most of my time doing noncontroversial things like writing about memes and blocking sox. I made a decision in 2017 to mostly avoid "the busier parts of projectspace". As an admin I've modified that to allow for engaging in an administrative capacity at some of those venues, although since my nightmare in August I've made sure it's never to such an extent that I'm dealing more with people than with words.

   As to how my controversiality, to the extent that it exists, would affect a term on ArbCom, I think it's more how a term on ArbCom would affect it. It's generally best for arbs to avoid making potentially controversial blocks (as regular admin actions) or proposing community sanctions, and I would follow those principles.

Questions from Izno

2. As an arb, you will have to deal with messes which often have a lot of reading attached to them. Some of them will be the reasonably ordered messes most cases are. Some of them won't be. One mess I regularly think about is this case request (last revision before archival and first revision). Assuming (for simplicity's sake) that the entire discussion was held onwiki, can you share some thoughts on how you might have responded to the original case request, the changes in aggregate that occurred while the request open, and the ultimate case request? Izno (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I think if you look at the end result there, essentially a full case having played out at A/R/C, it would have been better for there to have been a proper case. (Not necessarily with a different outcome; arriving at the same conclusion in a less chaotic way would have still been an improvement.) But looking at how things transpired, I also see how a complex multi-threaded discussion, with good-faith concerns about the implications of starting a case at all, led to things being resolved the way they were. If there's a lesson to be learned here, I think, it's that if multiple aspects of a request would require their own motions to address, a case is better—keeping in mind that potential misconduct in requesting the case itself is within a case's scope. Or the lesson is that there are some topics on Wikipedia so divisive that things will always be messy.

   So with the advantage of hindsight, I would have initially tended toward declining the case, in favor of further community review; would have come to support a case once further allegations were made in both directions; and would have opposed disposing of the case by motion.

Question from Beyond My Ken

2. Considering the very short period of time you have been an admin, do you really feel that you have enough experience to qualify to be an arbitrator, especially considering the concerns about your temperament which were raised at your (very close) RfA, and the recent incident with Volunteer Marek? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I've long hoped to see a non-admin arb. If we don't get that this election (and I hope that we do!), then I hope there will at least be some benefit in having an arbitrator who can freshly remember what it's like to not be an admin. Many ADMINCOND cases involve understanding how an administrator's actions affected non-admins, and I think I still understand that perspective very well. If there's one thing I gained from my RfA, it's that by the end I was thoroughly disabused of any notion that adminship is something special.

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

   While a significant change on paper, my anticipation is that the only thing that will change here for ArbCom's role is that (appeal to Jimbo notwithstanding) it will go from being a de jure court of last resort to being a de facto one. It seems unlikely to me that the U4C will have much appetite to overrule any decisions by the enwiki ArbCom—partly because of enwiki's traditional autonomy, partly because it seems unlikely ArbCom will have the sort of "systematic failure" that falls under U4C jurisdiction. In the event that the U4C did overturn ArbCom on something, I imagine that would be FRAMGATE levels of drama. Whatever the outcome, I don't thnk anyone other than dramamongers would walk away happy, so I think what's important for ArbCom to do is maintain the working relationship it already has with the WMF and work on creating a peer-to-peer relationship with the U4C and other ArbComs once that infrastructure is in place. Periodic meetings to discuss different communities' norms could go a long way toward avoiding that kind of crisis.

   Additionally, before the U4C is set up, the community should discuss whether or not to bar sitting arbs from serving on it. (Personally, I would not be willing to wear both hats at once, even if allowed by policy.)

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

   I hereby add this topic to the list of matters I will recuse on.

Questions from Joe Roe

2. How you would approach a situation where somebody you considered a friend was party to an arbitration matter? For example, how would you decide whether or not to recuse? Would it be different for public versus nonpublic matters? – Joe (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I would recuse from any matter involving someone I consider a personal friend. If it were a large case where that person's role were separable from everything else, that might mean just a partial recusal; if they were integral to the full situation, it would mean a full recusal. This would be the same in both public and private matters.

4. WP:VPP#RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE arose from a difference of opinion between you and the majority of the functionary team (including ArbCom) on our policy on nonpublic-evidence blocks. My concern at the time was that, despite still being quite new to adminship, your reaction to ArbCom's statement of their understanding of policy was apparently that they were wrong and you were right, and you escalated the situation to a community-wide RfC on that basis. Is that a fair assessment of the situation? If elected, are there circumstances where you would expect functionaries, admins or other users to simply defer to the committee's judgement, i.e. accept what you say whether or not they agree with it? – Joe (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   No, that is not a fair assessment of the situation. I blocked a user and, on advice of a sitting arbitrator, designated the block as "appeal to ArbCom only". I believe that was consistent with policy as written at the time, and to my knowledge you are the only person to suggest that it wasn't, or that ArbCom's subsequent statement was meant as a repudiation of it. That statement did not overturn that provision of the block, and in fact did not mention the block at all, nor did any arb communicate with me privately about it, nor did the statement have any retroactive effect on blocks previously made in compliance with the old policy. Which makes clear the issue with ArbCom's statement: It made new policy. ArbCom cannot make new policy. If arbs find an inconsistency in community policy that affects ArbCom, they should refer that question to the community for resolution, not try to fix the situation by issuing a third set of rules that contradicts both of the existing policy provisions and has no clear constitutional basis. I am proud of having called ArbCom out for overstepping its authority, and glad that L235's and my proposal led to a clarification of the policy ArbCom had tried to unconstitutionally supersede, and thus the restoration of community supremacy on the question of blocks for private evidence.

   are there circumstances where you would expect functionaries, admins or other users to simply defer to the committee's judgement, i.e. accept what you say whether or not they agree with it? There are situations where only ArbCom possesses relevant information justifying some action, but for privacy reasons cannot share those reasons. In those cases, ArbCom should give as much detail as possible, but there are still cases where that means no detail. In which cases, arbs should be understanding of community members who are confused (and likewise community members should assume good faith on the part of the arbs). But other than private-evidence situations, no, there are no situations where people should just have to listen to arbs because they are arbs. I strongly reject any notion that places arbs as hierarchically above other community members, just as I rejected ArbCom's attempt to place checkusers hierarchically above other admins, and as I reject the notion that there's a tenure requirement for an admin to criticize a Committee decision.

References

Question from Iridescent

2. As you know, because of how recent both your RFA and the incident alluded to above were, a significant number of Wikipedia editors are explicitly and recently on the record as expressing concerns about your judgement. Those people most vocal (both pro and anti) are likely to have a significant overlap with the group of people most likely to be sucked into Arbcom cases. If on the committee, how would you handle situations when participants raised concerns that you potentially wouldn't be impartial, and how would you handle situations where people said they were unwilling to disclose relevant details to the committee because they didn't trust you with sensitive personal information? (Arbcom does have mechanisms such as parallel mailing lists for excluding a particular arb from discussions in which there are potential issues with their participation, but it obviously wouldn't be practical to exclude you from any case involving one of the 400+ participants in the RFA.) This isn't intended as a gotcha question; there genuinely isn't a right answer, but it's a situation I can virtually guarantee will repeatedly arise. ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   After my RfA, Liz advised me to put out of my mind who had voted which way, and I've followed that advice. There's a few I remember (e.g. you, because we had a side-discussion about your vote afterward), but with 450 voters, it would take active effort to remember who voted which way. Case in point, in the course of reviewing my first GA, MaxnaCarta recently corrected me when I said we'd never interacted before. He'd voted oppose, it turns out. He says he regrets that vote, but I wouldn't care if he didn't. or most of my RfA, people were voting much more based on an idea I was taken to represent than on me, so I really take it even less personally than I would to begin with. Since then, I've stuck up for any number of opposers, and called out any number of supporters—one of my first admin actions was to block the sockpuppet of one—and often only realized afterward when someone else pointed it out.

   All of this is to say, I don't think I have a higher duty than any other admin or would-be arb to recuse based on someone having supported/opposed at RfA, and that's not generally something that people recuse over. I would recuse if I felt I can't be impartial, or if there were a clear reason that I would appear to have a personal stake (see also answer in § Questions from Red-tailed hawk). The number of people for whom I feel I can't be impartial, based on something they said at my RfA or in the recent Marek Affair, is maybe 10-15, and actually most of them are not people I'd expect to show up at RfAr. If it were a case specifically about the conduct of a single user or small number of users, my threshold to recuse would be a bit lower: A strongly-worded RfA oppose may or may not be enough to trigger a partial or full recusal in a "This whole topic area is a fucking mess" kind of case, but it's probably enough in a "This admin has a history of bad speedies" kind of case.

   As with my answer to BilledMammal below, I appreciate some of this is non-specific, as I'm trying to answer generally for a very broad array of situations; if you have more specific hypotheticals, I'm happy to get into those.

Question from EchidnaLives

2. Hello Tamzin. Following the recent incident with Volunteer Malek, what do you believe were the most important things you learnt from your self-requested review at the administrators' noticeboard? echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   There's a little-picture half and a big-picture half.

   The little-picture half is that I may have been too bureaucratic in how I've handled some edit wars. Many editors' perspective was that the p-block, at least, was within administrative discretion, but may not have been the best use of that discretion, and I've come to agree. I said at my RfA that I didn't want to be the kind of admin who blocks good-faith contributors as a first resort, and the incident with Marek reminded me to redouble my commitment to that. I should have given all participants warnings for edit-warring just outside the 24h 1RR, imposed the 72h 1RR, and seen what happened. Maybe people would have crossed the new line and I would have blocked them anyways, but it would have been a much cleaner block and much fairer to all involved.

   The big-picture half is that, as discussed a bit in § Questions from Red-tailed hawk, even situations that are not INVOLVED are best passed off to other admins if they're close to the INVOLVED line. I wasn't involved in a non-administrative capacity, and of the many people to comment, only a few said I was; but I think we all agree that I shouldn't have been the one to make the block, involved or not. I already understood there's times one should recuse if not strictly involved. For instance, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive310 § Screendeemer, I could have speedied the various pages and blocked or DS TBANned the user, and that would have been allowed by INVOLVED, but I recognized that doing so might give an appearance of impropriety, and instead speedy-tagged for other admins' review and brought the user to AE for a fuller discussion. But here I was reminded how deep that principle runs. It was a painful way to learn that lesson, but thankfully it's a very easy mistake to not make twice.

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   I have not personally been a party to, nor borne witness to, any infobox wars. (In my own articles, I follow a rule of "Would an infobox actually say anything useful?" Usually yes, but sometimes no.) I am aware that infobox disputes do still arise from time to time, but they don't seem any more common than other types of content-style warring, and I don't currently see reason to think that lingering issues can't be resolved through community processes. If one thing's changed since 2013, it's that the community's gotten much better at self-governance.

4. Thank you, and I agree about hoping that community processes will be used to resolve disputes. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective? An extra one for you if you like: do you understand that I didn't begin an RfC for Cosima Wagner? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   I think the talkpages at Olivier and Wagner show mostly healthy discussions on a topic that tends to evoke strong feelings. Sometimes editors get entrenched in positions, and this can make it unpleasant to continue a discussion, but I don't see anything at either page that suggests current community processes—backed by the infobox DS if necessary—are inadequate.

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from DanCherek

2. Thanks for volunteering. In your statement you mention that you think ArbCom's supervision of checkusers and oversighters is not transparent enough. On a practical level, what steps would you take (or propose) to remedy this? DanCherek (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

   I don't think it's ever appropriate for the Committee to issue a restriction on an advanced permission holder's tool use, or admonish a user for tool misuse, without making this fact public. If ArbCom determines, for instance, that a CU should not be making a certain category of checks, that should be posted at WP:ACN the same way that a TBAN or admonishment of an admin would be. If elected, I would also seek to revive the periodic activity reports AUSC used to give (on a more regular basis) and likewise the old practice of occasionally making public internal findings on select notable cases of CU/OS usage (with functionary identity anonymized if necessary).

Questions from 53 Angle

2. Do you think think there is sufficient independence between the CheckUser group and ArbCom, given one of the most important roles of ArbCom is the investigation of evidence backed allegations of improper use of the CheckUser tool? Do you think it would be a good idea if it was ever to be decided that there should never be a majority of ArbCom members of the Committee who have directly served in CheckUser or adjacent roles? 53 Angle (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)— 53 Angle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

   I think arbs should avoid making too much use of the CU tool, especially if they weren't community-appointed CUs before, but I don't see any evidence there's currently an issue with lines blurring too much between the CU team and ArbCom. I would not support the policy you describe, although I'm not sure if it would ever come into play regardless. Most arbs are not "career CUs".

Questions from BilledMammal

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

   I won't say I'd categorically never support one. If the principle or FoF were about the existence of a given UCoC provision, I can imaging situations where that might make sense to support. What I wouldn't support is a principle or FoF invoking solely the UCoC. If it's a good provision of the UCoC, there should be some provision of local policy to invoke instead. If it's a bad provision, then it shouldn't be invoked. (I feel meh toward principles or FoFs invoking both enwiki policy and the UCoC; I wouldn't propose one myself, but it wouldn't be a hard bar to supporting, assuming the enwiki policy invocation were apt.)

4. You often edit within controversial topic areas; RoySmith points out that you proudly state that you've written an article that’s subject to 4 discretionary sanctions. If elected, which broad topic areas would you recuse yourself from to avoid WP:INVOLVED issues?

   Since you've brought it up. I'll start by responding to a point that Roy makes, about me both being conflict-averse and being proud of having written an article that's in 4 DS areas: Well, yes, that's why I'm proud of it! I don't tend to be proud of doing easy things. Writing 1,800 words on a living trans woman who's been active in U.S. politics and serves in the Ukrainian military^{bonus community sanction!}, without that devolving into a mess of edit-warring and talkpage acrimony, was a challenge, and one I'm proud of having succeeded at (so far,  kinehore). I think being conflict-averse is a very good attribute to have when editing in topic areas where we're all trying to, well, avoid conflict. I also think it's a good attribute to have when serving on a body that arbitrates conflicts, but hey, YMMV.

   As to topic-area involvement, neither the community nor ArbCom has ever set a clear standard for when an editor becomes involved with respect to an entire topic area. To the extent that it's a thing, it's a pretty high bar: GiantSnowman, a case about an editor heavily involved in the football (soccer) topic area who made several controversial administrative actions in that topic area, did not see any FoFs or remedies (even unsuccessful ones) arguing he should not act as an admin on football matters. Thus, I don't think I am involved with respect to, say, GENSEX as a whole or the Russo-Ukrainian War as a whole. Where I am involved is certain aspects of the topic areas you've referred to. I consider myself involved with respect to the question of trans people's names, pronouns, and labeling, and already apply that principle in my actions as an admin (with the caveat that much of the disruption in that sub–topic area is outright vandalism or BLPvio [e.g. "Jane Doe is a man"] and thus exempt from INVOLVED). There's some other narrow aspects of GENSEX I'd recuse over as involved, like a hypothetical dispute over the applicability of MEDRS to content on transgender healthcare, which I seem to be one of the only people who enforces.

   And I guess within AmPol I'm probably involved with respect to the sub–topic area of retaliatory arrest in the United States, since I've written a good portion of our content on it by now, including our only GA on it... But the only conflicts I've ever gotten into over that have been polite disagreements over some finer legal points, so I doubt that'll wind up at ArbCom anytime soon—but again  kinehore.

   In other controversial topic areas, I'm involved with respect to articles I've written and edits I've made (and rarely users I've come into conflict with, but see above), but I haven't had much involvement in broader consensus-building that would make me involved with respect to a particular sub–topic area. (For instance, I don't think occasional edits to articles about mass shootings in the United States—usually adding basic facts or enforcing WP:BLP—make me involved with respect to gun control or any subtopic thereof.)

   That said, involvement is not the only consideration with recusals. There's also the appearance of bias to worry about, and that's an appearance that's heightened on ArbCom relative to regular administrative actions. With that in mind, I would recuse as an arbitrator with respect to Donald Trump and his vocal supporters (as I already do as an admin), transgender bathroom access, and the Russo-Ukrainian War, as these are topic areas where I've voiced my political opinions on-wiki—even if I do believe I could serve impartially in those areas.

6. Thank you for the detailed reply. As a follow up to question 2, as an arbitrator you would be able to sit on cases that impact a entire topic area - the subareas you are WP:INVOLVED in and the subareas you are not alike. For example, a hypothetical AMPOL 3 would impact both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

   Within your response you have addressed cases that impact a subpart of a broad topic area, but not cases that impact the entire topic area. My question is in which broad topic areas would you recuse yourself from cases that would impact the entire topic area?

   Caveat: This answer only includes topic-based recusals; i.e. it assumes that in each hypothetical case there's no party who would necessitate a partial or full recusal.

   • It's hard to imagine an AMPOL 3 where Trump-related aspects were separable from the rest, so I would likely recuse from that. If there were somehow an AMPOL 3 where Trump played no more than an ancillary role, then I'd recuse just from any Trump-related aspects, but that seems less likely than a Tree shaping 2. ;)
   • A GENSEX 2, that would depend heavily on what dispute triggered the case. I'm guessing I would wind up recused. But if it were, say, a case primarily about our coverage of LGB people (which is currently under the "broadly construed" part of GENSEX by some admins' interpretations, but a bit ambiguous), or if it were a request to bring paraphilias back under the GENSEX scope, then I don't think there's anything in my editing history that would necessitate a recusal. (N.B.: non-exhaustive list.)
   • An ARBEE 2, it would depend on how much it involved the Russo-Ukrainian War. If it weren't centered around Russia or Ukraine, I could see recusing just with respect to that conflict and related aspects, but I imagine that would probably encompass enough of the case's scope as to make a full recusal the wiser call.

   Sorry if that's not as precise an answer as you were hoping for, but it's hard to say for sure without an exact hypothetical in front of me. ArbCom cases, even ones with broad scopes, are rarely about considering the totality of everything that happens in a topic area, so I'm trying to answer for the range of possibilities. I'm happy to answer more specific hypotheticals if you'd rather.

Questions from Beccaynr

2. On October 12, 2022, you proposed a siteban for Athaenara at ANI, which ended with No consensus for a site ban, but administrators are cautioned that responding to an unblock request at your own discretion is likely to be seen as disruptive and additional detail in the closing statement. Because the framing of a proposal can sometimes influence the outcome, and now that there has been some time for reflection after your October 16, 2022 statement on your User page, is there anything you would have written differently in your October 12 proposal?

   I mean, if I'd had some way to predict that Athaenara would go on to use a sockpuppet to propose her own unblock, I guess I would have waited for that to happen, since it makes for a better case to ban. But knowing only what I knew then, I think that I made the best case that could be made. As I said in § Questions from Rschen7754, I think anything along the lines of "Athaenara is a transphobe. Ban her!" would have been disastrous. I laid out why this was an issue of behavior, not just beliefs, both with the dramatic inciting incident and a subtler past history of discrimination. The consensus just wasn't there in the end. But more than 50% supported a siteban, which was close enough to a consensus to merit that caveat in the close, plus a related consensus emerged for a TBAN, so ultimately I think it was a discussion worth having.

4. The October 16, 2022 statement on your User page seems to contain some strong language directed towards 51 participants in the Athaenara siteban discussion and refers to past discussions with "multiple" administrators. Does anything expressed in this User page statement support recusal from any ArbCom matters?

   As I said in that statement, my quarrel was with Not any one editor of 51, not even the 51 collectively, but our community as a whole. As in § Question from Iridescent above, I don't even remember most of the opposers in the Athaenara ban thread. There's three people who I responded to there in a sufficiently pointed manner that I'd say I'm involved or would appear so, and one of them is someone I'd recuse over at ArbCom regardless because we're off-wiki personal friends (see also § Questions from Joe Roe #1). A lot of people I deeply respect opposed that siteban. Editors can disagree, even strongly, over something, and still respect what one another contribute to the encyclopedia, and that's very much the case with many or even most of the opposers there. What I wrote in that statement above was my more-than-disappointment that we don't yet have a culture here in which conduct like Athaenara's is understood in its proper context—the victimization and alienation of a significant portion of our editors.

   I'm proud to have a track record as a strongly anti-bigotry editor and admin, but I understand that that our handling of hate speech and hateful conduct is an issue far greater than any one editor. I want more community dialogue on how we can understand one another better on that issue. I don't want to punish anyone for having the "wrong opinion", any more than I'd wish to be punished for that. And, finally, people contain multitudes. As mentioned, one of the people I disagreed with most strongly at the siteban thread was someone I consider a personal friend. I didn't like their take there; that doesn't stop us from respecting each other as editors and as people. That's one of those things you get used to on Wikipedia. There's people I'm 100% aligned with in one discussion and 100% opposed to in the next, sometimes even on closely-related topics. Working together to gather the sum of all human knowledge is a good way to learn that people are complex.

Questions from MrsSnoozyTurtle

2. Hello Tamzin. During your dispute with User:Only in death ("OID"), it seems that you accused an IP address of being a sockpuppet and asked OID if they were involved. User:Barkeep49 and User:Worm_That_Turned expressed concerns about this. Can you please explain the reasoning for questioning OID in a public forum instead of using the normal SPI process?

   I don't think I follow the distinction there between "a public forum" and "the normal SPI process". SPI is a public forum, and as an SPI clerk I often have to remind people that it is not the only forum where sockpuppetry can be investigated. Potential sockpuppetry gets discussed at AN/I, at AN, at AE, on users' talkpages, and yes, in ArbCom proceedings. OID made a vague complaint about an obscure, unremarkable action of mine, a few days after an IP did the exact same thing and was then blocked for socking, so I asked if that was his IP. I did so at the same forum because it is a widespread norm on Wikipedia to not split discussions across multiple forums if at all possible, and again, SPI does not have a monopoly on investigating sockpuppetry. As to where WTT and Barkeep got the idea that there's an issue with asking someone if they've loutsocked as a particular IP, I have no idea; you'd have to ask them. Policy says you can't force someone to disclose their IP, but simply asking someone is both allowed and relatively common. It would be rather strange if we forbade that, given that we allow admins to block users based on behavioral findings of loutsocking; why would we say an admin can say "You are IP such-and-such and I am blocking you" but can't ask "Are you IP such-and-such?" Asking, rather than assuming, is polite. We should not encourage people to leap to assumptions. Fortunately, a majority of ArbCom appears to see no issue with asking such a question.

4. How do your personal beliefs compare with WP:OUTING when it comes to IP sockpuppets?

   I'm not sure I understand this question. All OUTING says about IP sockpuppets is that it's not outing to tie an editor to an IP edit they haven't had oversighted. So to take your question at face value, I agree with that; but I'm guessing you mean something beyond that one clause?

6. Thank you for your responses. To follow-up question two, yes I should have been more specific sorry. I'm not very experienced in the fine details of the WP:OUTING policy, but I don't see where it states that linking IP sockpuppet edits to a registered account isn't considered to be OUTING.
   Anyway, the question is about OUTING's first paragraph stating that personal information should not be posted, and the second paragraph implies that a registered user's IP address is considered to be personal information (my understanding is that this is why CU investigations that may link a user to an IP address are done in private). What is your opinion on this issue, in particular when an IP is making suspicious edits?

   The relevant provision of OUTING is Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of an editor to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy. So, if User A accidentally edits logged-out as IP X, and User A has that oversighted, and then User B says "Hey everyone! User A's IP is X!", that's outing. If User A intentionally edits logged-out as IP X, and User B is able to piece together that that's the same person, that's not outing, for the simple reason that there's no private information involved. They voluntarily edited in such a way that might link their account to their IP and did not have it oversighted. And any behavioral analysis based on purely public information cannot, as a rule, be outing. Blocks are made all the time connecting IPs to accounts; quarry:query/67186 shows roughly 2 per day in 2022, and that's only counting ones where the other account/IP was wikilinked in the block summary. I'm guessing the real number is more like 4–5/day.

   The rule against tying accounts to IPs with CU is an exception, and it doesn't come from the OUTING policy, but rather from WP:CHECK and from m:OmbCom precedent. It's based on the fact that, in connecting an account to an IP, a checkuser is revealing information that was shared with the WMF under a general expectation of privacy. I very much support that general prohibition, but it's important to remember that it does not apply to information not obtained from the WMF's IP access logs.

Questions from GRuban

2. First, have to say, that I love almost everything about your user page, even the revision linked above. You've got ... let's say courage. And that courage makes you forthright about all the areas you'd need to recuse in, which is also a good thing. However ... those are an awful lot of areas. What would you say to someone who is worried that supporting you is basically a support for an arbitration seat that will be vacant due to recusal half the time?

   This is a fun question because, unlike everything else so far, there's a halfway-empirical answer! I'm gonna crunch the numbers on every arbitration matter that has led to a WP:ACN post in 2022 and see whether I would have had to recuse, and if it's anywhere close to 50%, my answer to this question will be "Fair point; I withdraw". Stay tuned...

   [Edit to add] Okay, let's see! (I've skipped clerk appointments, procedural CU/OS changes, wordsmithing amendments, other housekeeping, and any announcements serving as general reminders or announcing the start of a discussion. I've also skipped unblock/unban appeals because it's not always obvious to the public what factors were raised in the relevant discussions.)

   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding Scientology Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2 N Falls under my Trump-related recusal, if I'm correctly recalling the subject's politics. (I actually have a quite high opinion of her, but promises are promises.)
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motions from the declined case request Warsaw concentration camp Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole Y Would have recused from any discussion of the OS action that led to the motion (see shared IP disclosure) but not from the rest of the case.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding Timwi Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding Jonathunder Y Early on, I made a neutrally-worded comment encouraging one of the parties to take the case to AN, which indirectly led to this motion. Arbs in similar positions in the past have generally not recused, so I don't think I would have either; at the same time, it's not a comment I would have made as an arb, per my comment above about arbs generally keeping their hands clean of such things.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed Y GeneralNotability was one of my SPI trainers, so I would have recused from anything concerning him; however, his role in the case was largely procedural, so this would not have actually mattered.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding Geschichte Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding Ryulong Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding Rachel Marsden Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed Y This might be the toughest call in the bunch: I'm not involved with respect to any of the discussions, nor to WPTC as a whole, nor to any party—I'm on good terms with Chlod but no more so than several arbs who didn't recuse—but I am involved with respect to TNT, the filer (didn't share an IP at the time, but close friends). Given that their role was, like GN's in Skepticism and coordinated editing, largely procedural, to the extent that they weren't even listed as a party in the end, I think we would have probably landed in that same "moot partial recusal" situation; but I would have sought the counsel of fellow arbitrators and community members on that matter.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing closed Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Muhammed images Discretionary sanctions Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Level 1 desysop of Staxringold and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Staxringold restoration of permissions Y Would not have had to recuse. I was the one who reported this to ArbCom, actually. I also was the one who unblocked him after getting the greenlight from T&S; had I been an arb, I would have left that to someone else or explicitly marked it as "not an ArbCom action", to avoid any confusion about which hat I was wearing.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather Y Would not have had to recuse.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Level II desysop of Athaenara and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding Athaenara N The initial incident would not have required my recusal, but once I found the evidence that she had discriminated against various actually or possibly trans or nonbinary RfA/RfB candidates, including me, I would have recused to avoid an appearance of impropriety.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed N Would have recused for same reasons as above and per friendship with TNT (although no shared IP at that time).
   • Special:PermaLink/1123330542 § Level II desysop of Stephen and Special:PermaLink/1123330542 § Stephen - case request Y Weird timing here in that Stephen's last admin action was a good-faith, BRD revert of an edit of mine to T:ITN. But my understanding is that Level-II proceedings were already under way at that point, and I had said in the edit that I didn't object if someone reverted, so no recusal. (Also, if elected, I will ensure that there will never again be so flagrant an MOS:DASH violation in an ACN section heading. :P)

   In summation, that comes out to 3 full recusals, a partial recusal, a "partial recusal but it wouldn't have mattered", and a "probably partial recusal that wouldn't have mattered, but would have sought others' opinions as to whether to fully recuse", across 24 cases—effectively, 4 or 5 out of 24. I'm aware that "half" here was likely hyperbolic, but I do hope this assuages concerns. It's worth stressing that, of the 4 or 5, only one has to do with a topic-area-based recusal. It's also worth stressing that only one full recusal would have been from a full-scale case. So, to finally answer your question, what I would say is not to worry about that happening, unless there's a dramatic shift in what kind of cases wind up at ArbCom in the next 1–2 years.

• (I'm not sure if this needs to be my second question or a follow-up, I'm new here.) Thank you, that detailed count is much more reassuring. I am, however, somewhat worried that you believe our inimitable User:Atsme (whom I am, full disclosure, equally quite fond of) would trigger your Trump-related recusal (American politics 2) but conservative political activist, prominent Trump-endorser and literal airer of Jimbo Wales's dirty laundry (really; I can't make this stuff up ...) Rachel Marsden, would not, though. Would you like to change your answer? --GRuban (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's a good point. I wasn't familiar with Marsden's activities since said dirty-laundry incident. So, my recusal as an admin (RfA A18), which I've pledged to carry forward as an arb if elected, is from administrative action in disputes that substantially pertain to Donald Trump or users who advertise their support for him. The Marsden GS were not over a dispute that relates to Trump, and her article does not mention Trump, and the recision of the GS was procedural in nature, so I don't think a recusal would have been necessary. I would always, however, be open to arguments to the contrary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

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

   The Committee should not make FoFs asserting things it cannot verify. In rare cases it may make sense to note the existence of an allegation that could not be verified, for context as part of a larger dispute; but the lack of verification must be made clear (e.g. Alice says her comment toward Bob was in response to an insulting email he had sent her, which he denies sending. ArbCom was unable to verify or falsify that Bob sent the email in question).

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

   No.

Thank you for your answers. I asked all candidates the same questions. The one word for Q2 was all I needed, and thank you for that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from ZaniGiovanni

2. Thank you for your recent efforts of trying to be a an impartial arbiter in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, I appreciate you take time and thought to analyse each convoluted case individually, and make a made-to-fit judgement instead of taking a blanket approach. The AA2 topic faces massive disruption since 2020 war, flooded by nationalist-minded anonymous IPs and social-media-guided meatpuppetry. Standard Wikipedia measures, in the absence of sufficient policing in those articles, frequently fail to prevent this disruption. What is your systematic approach going to be to solve this issue, as an ArbCom member?

   As a DS admin and SPI clerk, I've seen a lot of those issues first-hand, as you know. If elected and given the opportunity to hear a new case involving Armenia/Azerbaijan, my decisionmaking will be informed by that knowledge of how contentious the topic area has become. It's one that suffers from a low number of editors interested who don't have strong personal opinions, and I'd be especially interested to work with other arbs to see if we can come up with any way to encourage new blood in the topic area. But ultimately I can't say what remedies I'd support without there being a concrete case request. I could see situations where I'd support topic-area-level general sanctions, like a 1RR or ECR, but that would depend on what the evidence showed. I could also envision supporting a motion saying that being sanctioned in any of AA2, ARBEE, or ARBKURDS puts someone on "one-strike" status in the other two topic areas, since spillover is becoming a bigger and bigger issue.

Thank you for the thoughtful answer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   I got a better high-school education here than the actual fancy private school I dropped out of, and want to pay that forward to the rest of our readers.

Question from Paradise Chronicle

2. Coming from a mistaken site ban (I guess some of the worse a Wikipedia editor can run into) the same month you launch your candidacy to the ArbCom...how can you credibly assure the community that you won't site ban someone mistakenly again as an Arb?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   Assuming you're referring to the one-week block of Volunteer Marek (which was not a siteban): I wouldn't trust any candidate who assures you they won't make a bad block at some time in the next two years, any more than if they assured you they won't make a factual error in an article or won't break an important template or make any other of the thousand kinds of mistakes we can make here as editors and admins. What I think I can reasonably assure you is that I won't make that mistake again, because as I said in § Question from EchidnaLives, it's an easy mistake to not make twice. And what I can say is that I've made 1,455 blocks and that only one has ever been overturned on the merits, while dozens have been upheld on appeal; of the four other than Marek to be reviewed at AN(I), one was upheld and three were superseded by sitebans. I hope the totality of my administrative contributions show that I do know what I'm doing with the blocking tool.

References

Question from MJL

2. Do you feel, with the amount of questions you have received relative to other candidates (more than double for some candidates), that you have had an outsized (and unfair) level of scrutinization? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Atsme

2. Will your recusal from be strictly Trump-related or AP2 related? GRuban's ping brought me here, and I think it's important to clarify what he alluded to relative to the (AP2) POV railroading nightmare I experienced, and what constitutes a Trump supporter vs an editor simply doing their job objectively. For the sake of transparency, I supported your adminship but there is a need for you to develop a better understanding of why writing/editing objectively does not constitute being a Trump supporter. Bias and preconceived notions are serious obstacles that prevent objectivity, and we see it in some of our WP editors on both sides. It is equally as harmful to the project, if not more so, to have admins influenced by POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and unacceptable for an arbitrator. Kudos to those who are aware of their biases...but once that cat is out of the bag, it's permanent; therefore, recusal is the only option. One thing I will not do is compromise truth or objectivity, be it as a WP editor, or on a personal level. Article content is supposed to be objective, and that has been made quite clear in our core policies. One of the biggest issues that WP faces today is the lack of objectivity, inadvertent or otherwise, resulting in widespread criticism by mainstream media. WP was recently referred to on social media as a "weapon" and having "lost its objectivity" by highly notable people like Mike Solana and Elon Musk, whose tweets are read by multi-millions of people. Concern is warranted, but we have done nothing substantive to eliminate the problem. It is not as big a priority for me as it would be for you, or was for the current ArbCom who basically chose to maintain the status quo, which was quite disappointing. Since I'm not doing an ACE2022, I will summarize by suggesting that you wait, and gain more experience as an administrator, especially in light of your recent error in judgment. We all make mistakes, most of us learn from them, and over time, we mature and keep getting better at what we love doing. I believe that you will be a good arbitrator after you've gained more experience as an administrator. I'm hoping that happens now for your sake, and not for any other reason. Best wishes, however it turns out. Atsme 💬 📧 16:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   Thank you for your question, Atsme. To be clear, my comment about your political views was based on a recollection that you'd said something on-wiki at some point. (Perhaps I misremembered?) I would never assume that someone supports or opposes a candidate or movement merely based on content edits that they make. I've made my fair share of edits that happened to align with Trump's position on something, when that's what was required by our policies and guidelines. I know what it's like to be accused of some bias because you've sought to improve an article; it's unpleasant, and often betrays, as you say, preconceived notions—I had one editor accuse me of pro-trans bias in a discussion where we were in agreement to not call an article's subject trans.

   So with all that in mind, I'll reiterate what I said to GRuban, which is that my recusal is from disputes that substantially pertain to Donald Trump or users who advertise their support for him, and what I said to BilledMammal, which is that that's almost certainly bound to include any broad dispute in the AMPOL area. But there's lots of conceivable AMPOL disputes that could have nothing to do with Trump—for starters, almost anything about the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administrations. One cannot, from my feelings about Trump, reasonably infer how I feel about, say, the Lewinsky scandal—or for that matter how I feel about hot-button issues like gun control and abortion. There were a number of people at my RfA who made the strange assumption that I was a die-hard Biden supporter. It saddens me that people see politics in such black-and-white terms. Voicing an opinion on one aspect of 2016–present American politics shouldn't force a recusal from 30 years of political developments at the federal, state, and local levels.

Question from Nosebagbear

2. During this year, you (and for the clarity of any other readers, myself!) endeavoured to clarify the rules on use and retention of private evidence by administrators. The Community decided it opposed any use of private evidence for non-arb blocks by non-CUOS. Around then, one of the two CUs that does significant amounts of work on the undisclosed paid-editing CU queue indicated that they did not intend to handle the smaller scale queries which would now need to be sent to them in that vein. As you would gain CUOS rights as an arbitrator, would you join those working on this queue should you be elected? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   I would happily assist in working on that queue.

Questions from Anythingyouwant

2. Do you support using juries, consisting of randomly-selected editors, to make many of the banning decisions at Wikipedia? I intensely dislike the current highly-centralized system, which is overworked, underpaid, and often more concerned with ending disputes than with whether that’s done fairly and in keeping with policy. This highly-centralized system is also unduly influenced by a cadre of editors who like to hang out at such proceedings, as well as influenced by hordes of dedicated enemies of the accused who make sure they have lots of input. Also noteworthy is the simple and basic fact that the most effective way for Wikipedia to censor content is to do so indirectly by banning users who favor that content. We can do better than this current system, and a jury of peers would be more deliberative, careful, and even-handed. Right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

   I've been hoping for a while to see a good comprehensive AN(I) reform proposal, and would love to be involved in that process if someone gets involved in that process. Juries are a novel idea; I wouldn't necessarily be opposed, but I'd want to hear arguments for and against before !voting. In any event, it's mostly beyond the scope of ArbCom, which only bans a few users per year these days.

4. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

   I wrote a significant portion of NOTMANDY, so, I definitely think it is the more correct interpretation.

Questions from ProcrastinatingReader

2. Above you say One cannot, from my feelings about Trump, reasonably infer how I feel about, say, the Lewinsky scandal—or for that matter how I feel about hot-button issues like gun control and abortion. Let's assume (for the purpose of this question) that you do have strong feelings on those, or some other issue. Do you think having strong feelings on an issue should bar an admin from taking admin actions in relation to that issue (or articles in that area), even if these opinions/feelings have not been expressed onwiki, and therefore other editors don't know about them? How about drafting/voting on arbitration judgements?

   If someone is able to set aside their views on a subject, merely having those views should generally not preclude them from acting in an adminstrative or arbitator capacity on that topic. To say otherwise would punish people for honesty and assume bad faith of people's commitment to putting Wikipedia's values first. An exception arises if they've expressed their views in the past in such a way as to create an appearance of impropriety—a line I'd generally draw at going beyond a mere factual statement of "I support policy/candidate/party/movement X" and into some sort of advocacy based on that position. (There's also, of course, INVOLVED, but that's a separate basis for recusal.)

Question from Femke

2. Being a party to an Arbcom case can be highly stressful. It's no surprise editors often choose to leave the project after an outcome like a warning or desysop. What do you think the committee can and should do to make the experience less painful for involved editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

   I think the most important things are maintaining a civil environment in the arbitration process and not letting cases run longer than they need to. I think ArbCom currently does decently on both, but there's room for improvement. I'd like to see ArbCom be stricter about requiring evidence for all claims at the time that they're made, and doing more to filter out the ANI-style peanut-gallery comments that still make their way into the arbitration process at times. As for timing, there's always the challenge of balancing volunteers' time, due process concerns, and timeliness concerns, but I think recent developments with shorter cases have moved in the right direction.

SilkTork

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   WP:Involved is similar to WP:COI in that the aim of both is to ensure that any decisions a user makes is purely impartial. However, while COI is a guideline, INVOLVED is a policy. The reason being that anyone can oversee a COI edit and amend or reverse it, while only another admin can reverse an admin action, and even then with great care in case they fall foul of WP:WHEEL.
   
   I'm curious as to your choices of ArbCom cases. Would you let me know why you chose them?
   
   Climate Change was over twelve years ago, and while the possibility of Involved was raised, it wasn't settled in that case. The case was set up to look into "the actions of Lar and Stephan Schulz‎ in the global warming field", and concluded with topic bans for 17 users, and discretionary sanctions for the topic area, but Lar and Stephan Schulz were not sanctioned, though Lar was found to have behaved inappropriately and Stephan Schulz was advised. The case is too old and too complex to relitigate it, but it appears from a glance that the question of Involvement wasn't one that ArbCom was going to get too involved in (other than the usual citing of related principles), especially when the community - at the time of the workshopping - was still looking into the issue itself: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar, and that the RfC appears to have been unresolved when the ArbCom case finished.
   
   The Manning case was over nine years ago. David Gerard appears to be the only party to that case to whom the term Involved was applied, and that was via two pieces of evidence. The claim of Involved appears to be slight (I have not read all of Gerard statements made around the time of the case, so it might be made clearer in something he said). The claim appears to be based on an assumption that Gerard was making decisions based primarily on a political, emotional, or intellect support of transgender people, and this support somehow interfered with Gerard's ability to make impartial decisions. The depth of Gerard's support for transgender people appears not to have been explored, and I'm not entirely sure such exploration was needed anyway. Of more interest to me in that case is the notion of doing the right thing even when it is against Wikipedia's rules (should WP:IAR have been looked into in the case?). My view is that I can, depending on the circumstances, admire someone who stands up for what they feel is right, even when the rules forbid that stand. However, to prevent encouraging people to unwisely ignore rules, anyone who makes such a stand should be sanctioned (and should expect to be sanctioned). The amount of such sanction to be determined by how much disruption they caused alongside the probability of the action having been done anyway if the rules had been followed. Preferably, everyone should open a discussion and get consensus for an action that is or possibly might be controversial and/or against the rules.
   
   The Athaenara case is very recent, and we are still dealing with the repercussions from that incident and case - TNT had their admin tools restored on request just yesterday. I should imagine we all understand TNT's frustration and anger at the situation, and empathise with their actions. And I think we all understand that they needed to be sanctioned.
   
   Because there are subtle variations and degrees of being Involved, each case needs to be taken on its merits. Of primary importance in any future case is a study of the incident and current guidelines; and though past cases can sometimes help inform current decisions, the older those cases are the less relevant they become to the here and now. SilkTork (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

2. After your first term, you were given this barnstar where it was implied that you didn't enjoy being on ArbCom. Your second term ended in a resignation following WP:FRAM. Given that, why run again? Rschen7754 01:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Madness isn't it? ;-) Partly because I was impressed by the actions of the current ArbCom. Partly because so few people had put themselves forward (I also privately emailed a few people encouraging them to step forward). I am going into this fully aware that there may be friction within the Committee when reaching decisions (such friction is rarely seen outside of ArbCom: what happens in ArbCom stays in ArbCom, though some of the frictions do sometimes spill out), and that there may be awkward decisions to make. I've always relished the awkward decision. My preference when closing discussions and AfDs is to do the challenging ones. It's more engaging and more satisfying. So: 1) I believe the frictions I saw in my first term, and the challenges of Framgate in my second term, were unusual, and are unlikely to occur again (if I'm elected and they do occur, I'll know I'm cursed, and will never apply to work on ArbCom again!); 2) I am older, wiser, and more experienced, so, if elected, I'm comfortable that I'll be better able to deal with whatever happens. SilkTork (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

   During my first term on ArbCom the Committee was still responsible for a wide range of misbehaviours, including child abuse, that we should not properly have been responsible for. If I recall (my memory is a bit fuzzy, and I'm not researching this, so someone correct me if I'm wrong) it was around that time that Worm started discussions with WMF that the WMF should take over responsibility for child abuse and related issues. WMF has been looking since then to judge just how much responsibility they should take for inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia and other WMF sites. Not an easy thing to assess without full consultation with the separate communities, and they made an error when they sidestepped ArbCom to ban Fram, resulting in Framgate. The forming of the Universal Code of Conduct is where we are now, and its a step in the right direction, and we'll see how it works. I think it will be useful for those communities which are not as organised and self-determining as the English Wikipedia. It's less clear how it will work with our community, and that is something that I think we'll find out. Provided WMF are as flexible, responsive, consensus-minded and willing to listen as the English Wikipedia community (and, after Framgate, I think they learned how resilient our community is to having self-determination taken away from us), then we should be able to openly talk through any issues arising. There are issues that the community can deal with, issues that ArbCom should deal with, and issues that are best dealt with via (U4C) or WMF direct. While there are some obvious bright lines separating those areas of responsibility, there are also some fuzzy grey lines; and that's always going to be the case, as we can't predict what will come up - we can't predict the unknown unknowns. With a positive frame of mind and positive communication we can resolve difficulties as they arise. SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   I love diversity, so am happy with whichever way you say it. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. SilkTork (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   If I recall, at the time of the Infobox wars, Infoboxes were still relatively new. Some people relish the new. Some people prefer stability. "Move forward - it's better!" "Stay the same - it works fine, and I understand it!". Such disagreements are common in life, and even more common on Wikipedia. New things tend to take time to get accepted. Infoboxes have been around a while now. They are not universally placed on every article, but I would say that the majority of articles have an Infobox, and the majority of users and readers will find them a useful guide or summary of key points. There may still be some disagreements about if an Infobox is useful in a particular article. I think that the main point of the case ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes) would still apply today. That if there is a disagreement about if an Infobox is useful in an article, then that should be resolved by editorial discussion leading to a consensus, rather than by edit warring. SilkTork (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Thank you for your thoughts, and you were an arb in 2013, so know better than users who came later. I agree that disagreements about infoboxes should be resolved, like other disagreements, in editorial discussion. The term infobox war came up in 2005 (see 2013 arbcase workshop), I met the conflict in 2012, over Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, so doubt a bit that infoboxes were new in 2013. What was new then, however, was {{infobox opera}}, which should have been the only issue of the arbcase, but what did I know then about arbitration, - nothing! I can report - not without pride - that the template is now transcluded in 1631 operas, and the former alternatives, the side navboxes for composers, were all deleted last year, not without more discussions. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   Pleased to see an infobox disagreement being settled in an appropriate format. Sad to see, though, that there are ongoing unresolved issues regarding the use of an infobox in that article. However, that is the way with Wikipedia - "stuff matters". The optimist in me hopes that will be the end of that dispute on that article. I was impressed with your contribution, Gerda, and saddened that a returning user editing from an IP joined the discussion purely to rake over old issues and to attack you. You didn't deserve that, especially given your neutral comments which amounted to a support of the status quo on that article, even though that was against your own views. Other than that IP (who was appropriately blocked), the discussion was calm, with people clearly putting over their views without spit and phlegm. I can see the points in the arguments on both sides, though it is clear that the majority of editors like them, and I suspect that the majority of reader do as well, so I can see their use increasing rather than decreasing, and it might be time for those who dislike them to just accept the situation. As far as infoboxes go, that is a very modest and useful one. And it is, perhaps, a model of what a good infobox should look like. I like the detailed close - perhaps a little long, but as a detailed closer myself, I think it is always better to err on the side of too much detail in a close than too little. Uninformative closes tend to unsettle and frustrate people. On the whole, Gerda, my perspective is that I found the discussion more encouraging than saddening. SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from DanCherek

2. Thanks for volunteering. At Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wugapodes, you opposed in part because they were an incumbent arbitrator at the time, writing: I am convinced by the arguments regarding a trend toward there being too many higher level permissions being grouped into the hands of a small group. [1]. If elected, this would be your first stint on ArbCom since becoming a bureaucrat. Did that concern about concentration of powers factor into your decision to run? DanCherek (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   At the time I put my name down, Worm was the only Arb going forward who is a Crat. I think it's important to have two or three Crats in the Committee, though more than that I think is not healthy. If I recall, that was the situation at the time of Wugapodes RfB - if they had been made up to Crat, that would have tipped it over into four Crats in the Committee (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just going on memory). If they put themselves forward now, I don't think they would have any problems. I would vote for them. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from BilledMammal

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

   Difficult to know the future. Historically I have been a bit of a quibbler, and I think I will continue like that. I tend to raise questions on issues arising from statements. Better to question and resolve, than to assume and accept/reject. Communication is key. See my response to TNT above for more of my thoughts on the Universal Code of Conduct. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   I joined Wikipedia in January 2006 because the project excited me, and I wanted to be part of it. I have always been a writer, and I am curious and want to learn about things, so helping write an encyclopedia seemed (and still does) a natural fit. While I sometimes stick to one article for a long while, building on it, tinkering with it, occasionally taking it to GA or FA level, I mostly simply edit the articles I am currently reading. Fixing a few things here and there. I use Wikipedia the same as any other reader. I consult it for information. Mostly I am really impressed at the quality of the articles that we have, and I feel proud that I am part of this project that can provide the quality of impartial and easily accessible information that we do; but sometimes (as we all know) an article needs a little help to move it in the right direction. Perhaps a little bit of copyediting, sometimes a whole lot more! I used to say on my userpage that Wikipedia is like a house being built by the community, and I'm putting in my brick as I pass on by. And I still feel that way. I feel proud of the bricks that I have added, but I feel prouder still that this is a community built house. People from all around the world of all ages, genders, ethnicity, religions, abilities and disabilities, have come together here to make this encyclopedia; and it doesn't matter who we are in real life - right here on Wikipedia we can leave behind our age, gender, ethnicity, self-image doubts, etc, and partake on a level playing field if we wish, where all that matters is our character, personality, and willingness to help out. I love that. SilkTork (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Izno

2. As a current or former arbitrator, you know ArbCom gets busy with appeals, casework, and other emails, as a matter of course. ArbCom also tries to improve its own processes or procedures in any given year to ease community use of the process or to decrease the amount of work it does. Now that discretionary sanctions are reformed (for some value of reformed :), what are the one or two things large things, or a few more small things, you think ArbCom should work on this year to improve its processes? Izno (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   I've long felt that ArmCom could be more transparent and use the mailing list rather less. And I've also long felt that ArbCom could one day be phased out completely - certainly in its current format. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is the transparency and openness of most of what we do. The ArbCom set up doesn't uphold those traditions as well as it could. I'd prefer to see privacy issues handled by WMF, and only where the issue might impinge on the project or community, should users on Wikipedia get involved. ArbCom was set up with privacy as the main focus, yet much of what the Committee does is not actually private, and it would be useful to hold the bulk of proceedings on Wikipedia. I'd perhaps like to see CUOS responsibility moved out of ArbCom and into an independent body. Essentially, I'd like to see ArbCom become simply the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

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

   The question implies that the Committee doesn't already have such a duty, which got me curious. In my time on the Committee when people raised concerns privately to the Committee, these were always checked carefully, and - depending on the nature of the issue - the Committee would sometimes seek independent veracity by asking a non-Arb Check-User to look at data. Evidence supplied during a public case is there for all to see, and when creating Findings of Fact, diffs are used which support the findings. It is not uncommon for Committee members to question those diffs and/or ask for more to be provided. So it is taken onboard by Committee members that they have a moral duty to check. But is that duty outlined in the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy? I had a look, and I couldn't see it. Should it be spelled out in the procedures? Possibly. I have worked with three different cohorts on the Committee, and noted the professionalism, maturity, sense of responsibility and duty that tends to be the norm for Committee members. The sort of person that gets elected to the Committee tends to be the sort of person that would feel it as their duty to check evidence. The drafter(s) of a case would have the initial responsibility to check details, and there may be at times the temptation to assume the drafter(s) had done their job properly; however, the strength of having a reasonably large Committee is that there is likely to be at least one person who would double check the diffs; added to which, if the community felt the evidence was insufficient or inappropriate, they would comment. I feel there is no harm in adding a clause to the procedures indicating that the Committee has a duty to check, just to remind people; though I don't feel it is a priority as the nature of the system we have already is probably robust enough. SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   In my experience that is not the case. During my first year on the Committee, Elen of the Roads, a Committee member, was "reminded" on one occasion, and sanctioned on another. And, in perhaps more recent memory, Alex Shih, was also sanctioned. In my experience the Committee does not "protect its own", nor does it unduly lash out against Arbs who transgress while serving. And, since Hersford Courcelles pointed out the Super Mario effect (I can't remember which case he devised that - but it would have been around 2012-13)*, I think all Committees have been careful to ensure that those with higher functions are sanctioned appropriately. SilkTork (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC) *It was the TimidGuy case: [2] SilkTork (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   They are both relatively new (the NOT one very new) and little used essays. Personally, I wouldn't use or support either, as WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:FALSEBALANCE give the more appropriate guidance. Every piece of information we add to an article needs to be weighed to assess its pertinence; while it is possible to write an essay on every example of where we are weighing the relevance or importance of a statement, the value of such essays are dubious (though can add lightness and humour, which may make the concepts easier to digest). SilkTork (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

---

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

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

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

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

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

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

Questions from Izno

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

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

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

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

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

Questions from TheresNoTime

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

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

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

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

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

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question from BilledMammal

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

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

Questions from Kudpung

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

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

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

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

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

question from lettherebedarklight

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

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

Question from Paradise Chronicle

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

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

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

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

Question from Anythingyouwant

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

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

Question from Femke

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

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

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

Barkeep49

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

---

Questions from Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I think the principle at Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block captures a lot of my thinking. The rest is something I wrote about at WP:HERO in that there are times that policy permits you to do something but the wisest course of action is to instead let someone else do it. I think ArbCom got it wright at Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block which is why I voted accordingly. I think the admin in Manning had the substance right - and am glad that's what our policies and guidelines would have us do today - but was correctly identified as running afoul of INVOLVEMENT. There's a LOT going on at Climate Change and I feel like I'd need to dive fairly deep into the case to have an informed opinion about the actions there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Edit:I realized I should perhaps have noted my answer about my own INVOLVEment in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. El_C, an admin who frequently handles requests at WP:AE, wrote:

   Even though the DS reforms may help simplify and untangle WP:ACDS, there seems to be a disconnect between ArbCom and AE admins / AE work. Returning to accessibility, I've criticized you on a couple of occasions recently for your stance that appealing AE sanctions directly to the Committee be muted as an option. I said something like: '99 percent of appeals go to WP:AN or WP:AE, anyway, so why not let folks know that appealing to ArbCom is fully viable?' So, the actual question, finally: wouldn't it be good for ArbCom to handle the occasional AE appeal, if only so they get a sense of how their authorized sanctions regimes are used? (The point is that appellants would need to know that these would be welcomed by ArbCom, in the first place.)

   My question to you is this: to what extent should the arbitration committee handle or be willing to handle appeals of sanctions meted out at WP:AE? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

   I occasionally would work AE before I was elected to ArbCom. At which point I promptly stopped because I became one of only 15 people who could hear appeals. In contrast there is a larger pool of admin who at least periodically work AE - I count 17 admins in November alone (plus 1 edit by me in answer to a question about a sanction I levied). That said I do think the committee should be supportive of the admins who work AE which is why their feedback was essential in the about to pass DS reform and includes an option I championed to send filing which are beyond AE's ability to handle directly to ArbCom for consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Questions from TheresNoTime

2. How do you foresee the role of the Arbitration Committee changing with regard to the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct (namely, due to the enforcement guidelines, and the introduction of the global Coordinating Committee)? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I discuss the answer to that in my platform which I'll quote here:

   "...my biggest concern with the UCoC from the time the UCoC concept was announced has been that it would interfere with large projects who were already enforcing conduct. I remain concerned. I think on the whole the EG does a good job of putting in adequate safeguards. At least in theory. Much of how the EG ultimately plays out will depend on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). It was important to me that we not have a Global ArbCom and as written in the EG they are not one. But much remains up in the air about the U4C because the EG committee deferred most details to a U4C Building Committee. So it is still possible that the U4C could turn into a global body that would overrule projects like ours. If elected, I plan to volunteer for the Building Committee in an attempt to represent English Wikipedia, English Wikipedia ArbCom, and ArbComs more generally. The devil is in the details and there are many details left to be worked out. Given my experience to date I think I am well positioned to help work them out." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Is ANI pronounced A-N-I or Annie? Thank you for standing, and good luck. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I say Annie in my head but I recognize that this is a minority viewpoint and have, when speaking it aloud among Wikipedians, started to default to saying A N I out of respect for that consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Joe Roe

2. Last year you organised the RFA2021 RfC. This year you were one of the drafters of Conduct in deletion-related editing, which spawned two more large-scale RfCs on article creation at scale (recently concluded) and article deletion at scale (yet to start). Looking back on these, do you think the "mega-RfC" is a productive format? Do you see a role for it in future ArbCom decisions? – Joe (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   So I think RFA2021 failed. If someone had tried to bring forward eithe of the proposals that were noted as having strong support it could have redeemed it but it didn't happen. However, while I regret certain choices I made with RFA2021 I don't regret having tried. We all know RFA is broken and my attempt to fix it candidate by candidate isn't scalable. I strongly believe this from my candidate statement: strive to improve the project. If something isn't working, I like to try to find ways to improve it... I am open to trying new things, and equally open to admitting when those new things haven't worked. Fundamentally I believe it is important for us to try to do better because we can be better. So yes I was open to trying something new with the at scale case. I would not have supported splitting the RfC during the case and didn't support it when it came up as an amendment. However, because I wanted to give it a fair chance to succeed I simply didn't vote knowing a majority of the committee did support giving the mods discretion to make that change (and because I did support the change around appeals). I think it's too soon to tell if this will do much to help with the conflict it was aimed at solving an so I don't know whether I think it should or shouldn't be in the ArbCom toolkit yet. I will continue to monitor it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

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

   I have seen no indication of anything serious in the past 12-18 months. I think the war is largely over and it might enter the realm of "normal" content dispute within the next couple of years. On a personal note, I so appeciate everything you do for the encyclopedia especially around editor retention. It seems like the infobox wars left a lasting impression on you. I hope as the intensity fades you can find some peace about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Thank you, and I agree that the "war" is largely over. I just have waited for normal content dispute already for a couple of years, 7 to be precise, since 2015 when all arbcom restrictions for those who prefer articles with infobox were lifted. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   It strikes mas afairly normal content dispute. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So you think "How sad to see the same old faces mischievously hanging around the same old articles to take part in the same old infobox debates ..." is normal for a content dispute? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's hardly unusual for there to be one or two people who write a statement that is a bit much in an RfC with that many participants. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. (This is not an answer to your comment, just info for fairness.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from Spicy

2. In August of this year you initiated a recall process against yourself based on comments made by TheresNoTime. You stated that Based on the standards I have for myself, this would suggest I am not fit to be admin and My having a poor, deliberate, bad faith (all words of hers and all unretracted) action on a situation is, in my mind, completely incompatible with the standards I have for myself as a member of this project, especially as an an admin. You blanked the page a few days later [3]. Since you're now running for re-election as an arb, I assume you don't stand by these statements. In hindsight, do you think you would have handled this situation differently? Spicy (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   You assume wrong. I continue to hold myself to very high standards - higher than the standard I use when voting to desysop others. I disagreed with TNT's characterization of what I said at the time and I disagree with it now. If I agreed with it I'd have just resigned. The whole point of the recall for me is to have other people whose opinions I trust act as a check on my self-judgement. So if some other functionary, especially one I hold in high regard, tells me that I have poor, deliberate, bad faith or the equivilent in the future I think it should trigger my recall process. What I would consider doing differently in the future is I'd be inclined to wait 24 hours in an indirect case (i.e. one where they don't say "I want to see you recalled" but instead characterize my actions in a way that falls short of my standard for myself) and see if they stand by the comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from DanCherek

2. Thanks for volunteering. With this part of your statement in mind, I'm curious about your retrospective thoughts on your symbolic vote to close the deletion-related conduct case. When you voted to close, 1 out of 13 proposed remedies were passing, and when the case was actually closed six days later, 7 out of 15 proposed remedies passed. It seems to be a situation where the decision was being discussed and deliberated, but you weren't pleased with the speed – or lack thereof – at which it was happening. Looking back, do you think that symbolic vote effectively conveyed the point you were trying to make and is there anything you would have changed about it? DanCherek (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

   I would suggest that's exactly an example of ArbCom being slow rather than deliberate. It was around that time where I sketched out what became the section in my platform you linked. As I noted in that vote to close cases were closed faster in 2020 and 2021 and I don't think quality suffered. There was 1 proposed remedy after that point - which did not pass. So everything that was going to pass was posted and crucially the Principles and FoF were passing. I had made some comments privately about how long things were taking to close and didn't get anywhere so I decided to go that course of action. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from BilledMammal

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

   I have supported principles modified from essays or that I wrote from scratch so sure I would support based on the UCoC. I am not sure what supporting an FoF on the UCoC would look like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I think from a real politik perspective Robert is right when he writes Citing the UCoC when applicable may help to ensure that we are left alone by the U4C. and this is something the committee should keep in mind especially once the U4C comes into existence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

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

   Yes I think the Committee has a duty to investigate. I spend a lot of time looking not only at diffs but the context in which they were made because it's what I expect of myself as an arb. However I don't know that every arb needs to do this; it is instead one of the roles I see the drafters playing for the committee going deep into the evidence of the case allowing arbs to focus on other things (including off-wiki things). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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

   I probably should just copy Primefac's answer: No. However I will note just how much work I see normal doing in that question. Arbs are not "normal" editors in that they have lots of social connections and editors (arb or not, admin or not) with lots of social connections don't get blocked for things that those without social connections do get blocked for. So in that sense arbs aren't in some special protected class or benefiting from some SUPER SUPER MARIO unavailable to others not elected as arbs. There are some good reasons that it plays out this way but I do in general prefer a more equal Wikipedia and so even this kind of distinction is one we shoulnd't be encouraging. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these answers Barkeep49. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear

2. Currently, outgoing arbs retain their CUOS rights indefinitely (subject to the normal). Would you be open to a change of process so that outgoing arbs only retained their CUOS rights until the next CUOS application round, where they would have to request and be granted them in order to retain them?

   Thanks for asking this question of me because I have pretty strong feelings on it. I would not be open to such a change. ACE gathers the most participants of any process we have which is appropriate because election to ArbCom is pretty much the biggest grant of trust we have in editors. Trust being the key word in that sentence. I agree with those who might support such a proposal that the community isn't evaluating the technical proficiency of candidates, it's evaluating their trust in those candidates. However, I would also suggest that trust is the most important factor in this equation and the community needn't be doing an analysis of technical proficiency to be making good choices with CUOS. The community has repeatedly shown that it trusts Newyorkbrad to make good decisions. And NYB shows that this trust is warranted because he knows that those aren't the right roles for him by giving the permissions back every time he steps off the committee.

   This idea becomes particularly absurd, for me, when factoring in that ArbCom are the people who appoint CUOS. The resulting message of this idea, if eneacted, would be "We trust you to hold these permissions for two years, we trust you to appoint others to hold these permissions for a lifetime, but we don't trust you to hold these permissions for longer than two years without waiting 10 months and going through a hiring process." Besides the absurdity I see in this, I also feel such an outcome spits at the spirit of WP:NOTBURO and is against the general Wikipedian idea of a flat hierarchy. Why should CUOS be only granted by 15 people rather than the hundreds of people who participate in ACE? Especially because ACE acts as a CUOS check on those 15 people.

   Speaking for myself, I think I am a skilled Oversighter and am a competent Checkuser. With more work I could probably become a skilled Checkuser but that kind of work isn't my favorite to do. So when I was planning on not running for another term I anticipated keeping OS but giving back CU. This would have been my way of repaying the trust the community placed in me when they elected me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

2. Above, you write "We all know RFA is broken". Can you say in what ways it is broken, in your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

   I think the community did a pretty good job of identifying the issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

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

   As I say on my user page, I edit Wikipedia because I believe in the mission of spreading the world's knowledge - for free! As I noted in my candidate statement I am running for ArbCom because of my deep belief in Wikipedia and the role it plays in the world. Providing high quality information, for free, has always been important but feels more so in today's world. As an Arbitrator, I want to continue doing what I can to ensure our community has the environment and space to advance our mission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from AndewNguyen

2. As an administrator before you joined ArbCom, you enacted a sourcing restriction on a controversial article to prevent misrepresentation of sources. But it never was enforced, and when that matter was raised with you as an arbitrator, your suggested solution was to make an AE request to undo the restriction. This was not done, so the restriction has remained in place with nobody enforcing it. Later, the problem of misrepresented sources on that article was one of a few related issues that received negative media coverage, including from prominent figures such as Jerry Coyne [4] and Ed West. [5] Considering this eventual coverage, do you still feel that not enforcing your restriction was the right decision?

   There's a lot going on in this question, some of which is split into your next question so if I don't touch on some part you think important ask a follow-up. When I placed the restriction I was actively monitoring the article and there hadn't seemed to be a need for it to be enforced. Over time my attention went into other directions and by the time there was an ask for enforcement I would have had to spend considerable time evaluating the diffs in order to enforce the restriction. In that ArbCom talk page discussion I offered a very real way for someone who felt it needed more restrictions to do so - file a case request laying out, simply, misconduct. That was not what we had been given in that ARCA where we were not being presented misconduct we were instead being asked to change FoF for a closed case. That was backwards looking and wasn't going to happen. But forwards looking changes and enforcement was (and is) on the table. But again it would have to start from the misconduct. Alternatively AE was and is a place that a request for enforcement could be asked for. By the end of that thread I got the sense that Ferahgo wanted the restriction to go away - which seems to opposite of what you want here - and so I told them how to get that to happen. They didn't take me up on it so the restriction remains in place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

4. In general, when an administrator enacts restrictions on a Wikipedia article, what responsibility (if any) do you think that administrator has to make sure those restrictions are enforced? --AndewNguyen (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   A small amount of responsibility, is what I think my answer is. Administrators continue to be volunteers and should be free to do the kinds of work that is interesting to them and which fits into the time they have to give to Wikipedia. Often times an admin who places a restriction is going to be the one who can best do enforcement because they have the required background knowledge to respond more efficiently. But also an admin getting into a WP:HERO mindset isn't good either. If something needs enforcing there are ways to get the attention of any number of admin, not just the one who placed the restriction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from El_C

2. When you were first elected, you were my top choice, but now for the first time I'm leaning oppose. Say you were interested in regaining my support (not a given), what would you do to increase rather than decrease accessibility to ArbCom processes and procedures for rank and file editors (not just insiders like myself)? See also my question to Kevin about the role of clerks. El_C 13:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   To answer the substance of your question, I remain intrigued by the idea that you've brought up of making our template for filing ARCAs easier. I personally don't have the template chops to do it myself, but as a concept I've brought it up and will continue to do so. While I am not currently a drafter on it, much of the work I did on DS reform remains basically unchanged, including writing instructions for administrators and much of the policy text for what has abolished AWARENESS (though to give credit Kevin did much of the foundational thinking on that topic). I also spend real time as an arb working 1-on-1 with people to understand our systems and procedures - you can see an example of that from the GSoW case and also in a couple of examples at WP:AN ex 1 ex 2. I should also note that accessibility to process in the extreme would be a bad thing. For instance, we could make filing a case request easier by not requiring notifications of the parties listed or examples of past dispute resolution. I don't think either of those would actually improve ArbCom as a whole even if they would make filing a case more accessible.So when making these kinds of process improvements there's a balance to be had. To be clear I though I think we should make improvement because as I say in my candidate statement, fundamentally I believe it is important for us to try to do better because we can be better. In terms of your vote itself, I absolutely want to earn your vote in the same way I hope to earn everyone's vote while knowing (and being comfortable with) the fact that 100% support isn't actually possible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

4. And secondly, would you be willing to stand up to WMF overreach (UCoC and beyond)? Like, for real? Thanks. P.S. Yes, I've read your platform El_C 13:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   Since I'm not sure what real means, I'm going to do my best job of answering but please do let me know if I miss the mark. El C you are the kind of editor who has Che Guevara as a picture on their user page and I am not. If you are a revolutionary, I am more of an institutionalist. I think our movement needs both of us to be successful. This does mean that I do not think we need a revolution against the Wikimedia Foundation. And my vision for what it should do is more expansive than some on enwiki. For instance, besides keeping the servers running, I also have seen the real and necessary work that the disinformation team has done and am glad that the disinformation team exists. But I am absolutely willing to tell the Foundation that they have it all wrong and/or that they are stepping on the toes of the community.

   You've read my platform (thanks!) but for those reading this answer who haven't, in it I note some failings of the Foundation around budget. You can see how that plays out on-wiki in comments like this. In line with my general style, I tend to be more forceful in private rather than public comments and that has been true in this situation and others. However, I am also willing to take action when it's possible. For instance during my term ArbCom asked the foundation to do something, the Foundation formally declined, so we appealed that decision and had it overturned. I was the one who wrote that appeal and had indicated I was planning to move forward as an individual if ArbCom didn't want to as a body though ArbCom did. I'm proud of this work - it's one of the 3 examples of standing up to the foundation I mention in my platform. I'm just sorry that I can give more details about it because I'm quite confident that you and others reading this would also agree with our action and that what we did was genuinely standing up to the Foundation.

   Finally, I want to note that If I'm willing to stand-up to you during the time voting is open for an election, and I am [6] [7] even knowing that it could jeopardize your vote as you indicate I have in Q1, I would hope that would show that I'm willing to stand up to the Foundation even when doing so is not easy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   @El C: what do mean by standing up for real? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   Well, I wouldn't say that standing up to voter-me is on par with standing up to the WMF (though, I'm humbled), and my sense is that you'll be elected regardless of anything I might say. But unlike real world politics, when it comes to EN's relationship with the WMF, I might be more of an institutionalist than you realize — in the sense that I'm more immediately concerned with an erosion of independence, here, at EN by the WMF. Rather than looking to wage some kind of 'revolution' against them, which I'm not and is not a thing. But thank you for answering in detail. I'll perhaps leave you with the advise to not neglect the public sphere (i.e. at the very least to avoid the perception of reflexively defending the WMF). Because even if efforts in the private sphere might work to offset this, knowledge of it is inherently, well, more private. El_C 17:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

6. Uh, for real for real. Similarly to my question to Guerillero: "The sense (my sense) lately is that you've been quick to praise the WMF — but criticize them, not so much." Anyway, a follow up to my first question. Even though the DS reforms may help simplify and untangle WP:ACDS, there seems to be a disconnect between ArbCom and AE admins / AE work. Returning to acessibility, I've criticized you on a couple of occasions recently for your stance that appealing AE sanctions directly to the Committee be muted as an option. I said something like: '99 percent of appeals go to WP:AN or WP:AE, anyway, so why not let folks know that appealing to ArbCom is fully viable?' So, the actual question, finally: wouldn't it be good for ArbCom to handle the occasional AE appeal, if only so they get a sense of how their authorized sanctions regimes are used? (The point is that appellants would need to know that these would be welcomed by ArbCom, in the first place.) El_C 13:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Electoral Commission comment: @El C: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Questions, one responsibility of the Electoral Commission is having "the final say at what constitutes a reasonable follow-up question". Unfortunately, after discussing this with the other electoral commissioners (AmandaNP and Cyberpower678), we believe that your question exceeds the two-question limit. I know that you labelled the question as a follow-up to your first question—in our view, a "follow-up question" needs to be very closely related to the previous question or the answer given by the candidate to the previous question, and in this case, we believe that your third question here was not closely related enough. (Q1 was a broad question about accessibility to ArbCom while Q3 was a much more specific question about ArbCom's role in AE appeals.) Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks. El_C 02:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

   Sorry for the slow reply - I missed that I had new questions. I am of the opinion, that as with so much else, we should take our lead from reliable sources, particularly in this case reliable secondary sources. So if the reliable secondary sources include a denial we should include it as well with appropriate WEIGHT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from NewsAndEventsGuy

2. As you consider your reply to User:Anythingyouwant above, (A) are you aware that the essay WP:NOTMANDY is almost entirely their own work, and (B) does that fact, if true, influence any of your opinions on anything in the universe? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

   Sorry for the slow reply. I was not aware who wrote either essay but it doesn't change my thinking about the underlying issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)