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.

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

    Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am familiar with the Law and Social Inquiry article, but I had not read Konieczny's 2017 paper before so I had to take the time to read it. The "Biases in collegiate courts" section on pages 5–6 provides interesting examples of various types of biases that are relevant to ArbCom and are (for myself) worth keeping in mind. To your first question, biases exist in so many forms that if someone claims they are unbiased, then they are simply unaware of their own biases. While it is not possible for a person to be truly unbiased, everyone (ArbCom and otherwise) should strive to be as unbiased as possible, which is why diversity in ArbCom and the community at large is so important. To the point of off-wiki canvassing, that is always a concern because if done right there's no indication that it's happening and things like consensus are swayed in an inorganic and inappropriate way. As for the "tenure" issue, I would like to think it doesn't happen as often as complaints about it suggest, but it does happen to varying degrees. The 2023 Grisel paper suggests that a possible explanation is that editors with more experience are less likely to act disruptively, and I think there's some truth to that, but tenure does not excuse behavior; those with significant experience should be more aware of what is inappropriate on Wikipedia, so I think all of those factors are something that ArbCom should keep in mind when evaluating cases. To your followup question, I think mindfullness and transparency (so far as privacy-related issues allow) is the best way to address such concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. In your statement you give an example of a third opinion as an example of why you're ready to serve on ArbCom and in response to Question 1 suggest you haven't made any hard decisions. Can you explain how a non-binding opinion about content - which is outside of ArbCom's remit - has prepared you for ArbCom while not having made any difficult administrative decisions? Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More