2023 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 23:24 (UTC), Saturday, 13 April 2024 (
)
These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
This page contains all questions asked of all candidates, in order to facilitate easy comparing between candidates.
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.
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)
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.
You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility- you don't specify why the protection was made, but let's assume that it was a bad idea for one reason or another. Unless said admin doubles down and refuses to accept that their action was unwise, or this is part of a pattern of tool abuse, I'm not seeing all that much actionable here beyond perhaps an informal reminder. I also note that the "senility" comment would appear to be a personal attack, and potentially sanctionable.
Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager- this does not seem at all to be anything approaching a case, although that statement would appear to be suppressible (as it implies the admin is under 13). The hypotheticals branch out quite far, but I foresee some sort of sanction for the claimants as they are either outing a minor or telling falsehoods in order to exert some sort of control.
Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares.- this one could be interesting. Worth mentioning at the start that the "rows of squares" comment seems to be a violation of our civility policy. We now have several questions to answer about the underlying facts: Were these votes actually canvassed or otherwise improper? Could these votes have swung the outcome of the RfA? (e.g. 15 votes in a 220/2/2 RfA would be unlikely to have a practical impact) If the answers are "yes" and "yes", then we are somewhat off the edges of the map and we would need to figure out the most sensible resolution, almost certainly alongside the bureaucrats.
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)
would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus- I would of course support the community's right to come to a consensus along the lines of "we disagree with WMF decision X", but a consensus along the lines of "...and we empower our administrators to wheel-war with the Office" is a different matter. firefly ( t · c ) 21:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
invoking its jurisdiction over all matters previously heard and exercising its authority to revisit any proceeding at any time at its sole discretionreferring 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)
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)
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)
Parties receive only 1000 words and 100 diffs; everyone else gets 500 words and 50 diffswhich is true, but does omit that extensions can be requested and granted for additional words as needed (though it is by no means a guarantee). I absolutely agree with the point that's being made, but while the possibility of an additional allotment is an exception, it does happen; additional allotments were granted in 3 of the 5 cases in 2023 (Smallcat, AlisonW, and World War II and the history of Jews in Poland) and I saw no such requests that were denied this year. - Aoidh (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
would like to see most ban appeals turned over to the community. (No need to explain your caveat regarding cases involving private information; that is self-explanatory). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to popular opinion, not every decision you disagree with is open to endless challenges. Go and write an article instead of wasting time with meaningless drama.Do you believe that your tone in that comment was appropriate? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
"multiple private requests to do something in this topic area"and I said at ACE last year that a case should have been opened for the area in January 2022, predicting that the Committee's solution to the initial Warsaw concentration camp request would not lead to meaningful change. From a philosophical point of view, I think that the fact that the Committee was willing to propose the case sua sponte showed that it was willing to be more proactive than reactive – I know that it is simply not possible most of the time – and perhaps points at how pressing the Committee thought the matter was.
"the most basic standards for conduct across the movement. Projects with well-developed policies typically meet or exceed the UCoC expectations"and said that it was intended for projects with few behavioural policies. I think that it is very unlikely that we will be perceived as having not enforced it properly, especially since the Fram affair.Given that this is a very tense situation in real life and on-wiki, the Committee should be careful not to inflame these emotions further. Accusations of senility and being
"too young to write about rape"would be insults based on age, and disclosure of personal data; bringing issues across from the Elbonian project into the English one may be
"following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them"(also 3.1). The
"nothing more than rows of squares"comment may be an insult based on ethnicity and race (3.1), but I think a more likely explanation is that the Elbonian language characters are not rendering properly (my devices, for example, give me error codes for some of the scripts listed here). If users from other projects are voting at RfA here without being active editors here and having the proficiency to read/write basic English, it may raise questions of how they were aware of the RfA and whether there has been any off-wiki canvassing.The Committee has a responsibility to examine the evidence in the case requests. For the first case, unless there is further evidence to support the idea that the administrator has fallen short of the standards of this project, it may not be viable to have a case based on their conduct. It is very rare to fully protect talk pages unless they are redirects or archives, but it may have been justifiable if there was consistent vandalism/disruption from extended-confirmed accounts. On smaller projects, the safeguards for retaliation against administrators may not be as strong – it is important not to take the desysop at face value. The Committee may have to issue warnings for importing issues from other projects.The assertion that someone is a minor is usually suppressible for their protection, as it is a disclosure of someone's personal information. Unless the new administrator is breaching editorial or behavioural expectations, she is free to edit in whichever topic she wishes; it is not for the Committee to rule that based on her purported age, she cannot or should not go into certain areas. That is the same for other users – unless they have actual violations of policy, they cannot be excluding or hounding someone out of a topic area because of their age.If it is clear that the situation is untenable and has become too complex to handle for the Community (it can usually deal with RfAs by itself), The Committee may need to open a case on conduct in relation to the Elbonian civil war to address harassment and possible off-wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry. Designation as a contentious topic may be necessary and it should keep Trust and Safety aware of the evolving situation, given the real-life implications and possibility for harm and harassment.
"while there are strong feelings on both sides of the dispute, the issue isn't as unmanageable as it was ... as with most disputes in contentious areas with many participants, there were some unpleasant statements being made about editors' motivations and stances". The Mozart discussion seemed better-tempered than the Laurence Olivier one that you asked me about last year. While there haven't been any logged enforcement actions this year, El C's comment about the presence of the "contentious topics" designation being a good deterrent is worth noting.
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
"Part of being a Wikipedian is the need to always listen and learn: that did not change after I became an administrator and will not change if I am elected."Please clarify if I have focused on the wrong part of your question, because I am not sure how the value I place on privacy is connected to the rest of it – I will be extremely careful not to disclose any of that to non-Committee members.
I will not be obstructionist or contrarian for its sakeas saying you will be willing to resist decisions and be the only one to hold a position when there is a point to doing so) it seems like you might have a vision of you standing apart from others on the committee. Or maybe that's wrong and you have other ideas about this, hence my question. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
"a sense that all the arbs are in it together, even, or especially when, you disagree"– in addition to what I said above, constant recognition that my colleagues are all human and have different priorities both on- and off-wiki that demand their attention in different ways is important. Sometimes being willing to listen to someone sharing their difficulties goes a long way. I also do not see myself standing apart from others on the Committee – we will be working together for the greater good of the project and it would be naïve to think that I can accomplish that alone.
"speak up to refine and strengthen the Committee"was linked to the point before it:
"As a deliberative body, the Committee needs diverse perspectives to make the best decisions". I therefore meant that I would refine the Committee's decision-making process by ensuring that it was well-informed and fully considered all viewpoints – this would refine the Committee as an institution too. Sorry for not making that clearer.As for changes I would like to make to the Committee, I've written about cultural and structural changes in my answers to MicrobiologyMarcus (greater recognition of social capital, the role of drafters and non-drafters), to Tamzin (greater transparency), to WereSpielChequers (how we should deal with administrative conduct cases), and to Red-tailed hawk (burnout and inactivity). I've also written about how I will work with my colleagues through honest and humble communication in my answer to Barkeep49. I'm not under the illusion that these changes will be easy, but I'm certain that whatever happens, we will be working for the greater good of the project.
"how they respond to feedback and scrutiny – do they listen and improve, or do they scold the person that was brave enough to call them out?". It should also go without saying that AE would only be appropriate when the various contentious topics requirements are met.
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.
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 16:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
References
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.
I don't think that ArbCom should usually wait to hear from the accused admin before deciding whether a case should be accepted, at least if the case is strong.Several arbitrators and other editors have previously opined that ArbCom sometimes waits too long to open this type of case, especially if it appears the admin is deliberately not responding; but your view seems to be that the admin need not be afforded any reasonable time to respond at all. In my experience, allowing "the accused admin" (like anyone else who is the subject of a case request) a fair opportunity to respond often results in useful feedback, ranging from an explanation of or relevant context for the disputed action, to a commitment not to repeat the contested action, or sometimes a resignation that moots the need for a case. It also allows time for other community members with relevant information or viewpoints to weigh in, as you yourself have done frequently. Would you please further explain or clarify your thinking on this point? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
I'll remain nominally active, but outside CU/OS [appointments] and the PD [CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin when it still looked like we would have a case] (assuming it's done before I'm active again) don't wait on me for input.And I stuck to that even while traveling across the country to deal with a family health emergency: in the week following that email I provided (internally) input on the pending case, responded to questions regarding the CUOS process, and provided feedback on drafts. I didn't do much else, but I had committed to helping with the CUOS process and a case is a clear "all-hands" situation. With the little free time I had, I completing the work I had committed to in the moments I would otherwise be on BlueSky or Twitter.In meatspace, I'm a PhD candidate studying language variation and change, and if there's one thing that exemplifies "doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard" it's research and writing! Very often I've had to pass up on social events because I needed to make a deadline. Just last week, a friend came over and while we were hanging out I was on my laptop writing intermittently because I was two days behind on getting a draft to my committee (but I had promised him we'd hang out). I do the same thing for my work on the Arbitration Committee too. I agreed to take on this work for the community, and sometimes that means skipping out on weekly bar nights because I spent all day writing a paper and won't have any other time to work on a proposed decision. Would I rather be out drinking with friends? Of course, but service work is rarely the easiest or most fun task on the to-do list. — Wug·a·po·des 02:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I thank ArbCom for prompting this on-wiki disclosure, as it now means that the community can discuss this pattern of misconduct in the open.Because of the privacy concerns at issue, sending out a news blast on ACN to be copied to some of the most visible pages on the project did not seem like the most prudent decision, but relevant parties were notified of the outcome so that they can (and did) handle the public matters openly. Generally I think we strike a good balance between concerns for privacy and the need for transparency so that the community can handle affairs on its own. — Wug·a·po·des 20:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Sadly I don't have so much liberty. No, I'm resigned to sitting here stoically, my eyes held open, forced to read the same arguments over and over again for two months, unflinching. Anything less and I get called insanely biased or told to watch my tone. I should watch A Clockwork Orange, describing what it was like to deal with one of the editors active in the case ([1]). Given that you felt that way, are you sure that it's in your best interest to seek two more years of that? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil warOdds are low that I'd support this. While we avoid protecting talk pages whenever possible, sometimes it's the only tool for the job. These protections should be brief and only as strong as necessary to prevent the disruption. That it was brief is a good sign, but the full protection is concerning. It would depend on who was disrupting the talk page and to what degree; if there were a lot of extended-confirmed socks or meatpuppets then it might be reasonable. Even if it were too strong, I'd probably lean towards a trouting absent aggravating circumstances like being INVOLVED in the dispute.
we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senilityNot compelling and probably a UCOC issue. The Elbonian Wikipedia sets its own policies, and we set ours. While we can look to sister projects for guidance, the decision to desysop is based on our policies and as long as the sysop is following our policies I see no reason to yank the tools. More cynically, and again based on what I've seen with political struggles on other projects, I would be worried that there are local political motivations for the desysop on the Elbonian Wikipedia. On other projects where the local community has offline political and ethnic conflict, we've seen crats and sysops attempt to centralize power for their political cause in order to manipulate content shown to readers from their culture. One method for achieving this is the ouster of sysops sympathetic to a particular cause, often for manufactured reasons. (to answer your question directly, see UCOC 3.2) I worry this might be what's going on, but being a hypothetical I would need more evidence before I committed to that analysis or reported up to the meta community. The charge of "senility" is also worrying. Locally, I'd say that's a personal attack, and regarding the UCOC it would probably fall under discrimination based on age or disability (UCOC 3.1).
Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenagerMy first inclination would be to suppress this. It implies that the editor is under 13 which is squarely in the realm of child protection where suppression is a tool of first resort. I'd then start a discussion with the other oversighters and arbitrators on how to proceed. Odds are low that---if the age claim were true---it would be public knowledge. We are generally good at suppressing information relating to the age of minors for reasons and someone under 13 would almost certainly fall into that camp, which makes me think this is probably some form of outing, and probably harassment. As a practical matter though, I sincerely doubt that someone under 13 would pass an RfA in the current climate (this is a good thing). The maturity necessary is substantial even for young adults, and given that it takes 1 to 2 years minimum to prep for an RfA, the editor would have had to have started editing as a third grader at the latest for this timeline to make sense. It's getting very messy very fast, but some options are (1) the admin is a preternatural pre-teen being outed by compatriots (2) the admin is an adult pretending to be a child (3) the accusers are lying to make it seem like 1 or 2 is the case. 2 would probably lead to a ban of some kind for the admin, 1 and 3 would probably lead to sanctions against the accusers, and I'm not sure how would work out for the kid, probably some kind of topic ban but it would be heavily fact dependent.
Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares.I'd probably want to have a chat with the crats, especially the closer if it was a unilateral close, and see if this information affects their read of the consensus. If removing those rationales results in a clear pass, then I don't think we need to do much beyond make the crats aware and let them handle it as they see fit. If removing those rationales puts it into the discretionary zone or clear fail, then we would be in a tough situation. This would be pretty fact dependent, but my inclination is to kick it back to the crats. ArbCom passes some motion with a FoF regarding those accounts, and instead of our usual "desysop, regain tools by RfA" we have some language like "desysoped, but tools may be regained if in light of our FoF a consensus of crats finds consensus to promote". Assuming the RfA was incredibly recent, desysop and running another RfA is a huge resource sink and probably not worthwhile. Giving the crats more info and telling them to reclose seems most efficient. If it had been a few months, or there were intervening issues, then it might make sense to just desysop with directions to RfA again. This would also be something I'd ask the crats about from the start since we'd be shouldering them with work.
Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 16:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion.will no longer be true. The right to form a consensus to tell the Foundation we disagree with a decision is part of CONEXCEPT; but using edit and sysop tools to disrupt the encyclopedia is one of our strongest and most long-standing prohibitions.I don't think this is particularly realistic (or smart) that we'd jettison decades of behavioral policies in order to make it easier for a particular faction to disrupt the encyclopedia. IAR generally does not apply to behavioral policies; "improving the encyclopedia" generally isn't a good defense for violating WP:NPA for example. I also don't think it would be smart for ArbCom to set a precedent that we will ignore multiple well-established policies out of personal spite or factional allegiance. Another option is that all of those still apply, they just only apply to those on the Wrong Side (TM) or editors without the political power to be granted clemency by ArbCom. That's worse, despite being a more realistic view of how people tend to want rules applied. The Committee is tasked with the evenhanded application of policy, and I'd shy away from using the position to carve out exceptions to long-standing expectations in order to privilege particular factions or undermine conduct expectations. Supporters of a particular faction will always want preferential treatment when their members face consequences for their actions, and while it would be politically easy to say I'd grant amnesty to whatever faction is en vogue this year, that's not what justice is and it's not the role of the Committee. — Wug·a·po·des 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
If you don't want to be sanctioned for wheel warring, don't wheel war. If you don't want to be sanctioned for edit warring, don't edit war.[...]The right to form a consensus to tell the Foundation we disagree with a decision is part of CONEXCEPT; but using edit and sysop tools to disrupt the encyclopedia is one of our strongest and most long-standing prohibitions.[...] — Wug·a·po·des 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)