v t e 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections There are 2 days and 10 hours until voting begins. (refresh) Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Quick guide Candidates: Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates show Personal voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Giraffer Carrite Ealdgyth Elonka

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

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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. During my last term, the Committee finally moved away from hearing CheckUser appeals, which has freed us to focus on our still considerable task list. (from your statement). Is this something that was publicized and I missed it, or was it an unpublicized internal change? Either way, who hears CU appeals now?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   If anything, the fact that you hadn't noticed means that it has not appreciably changed or broken any existing workload :) It was announced here. Maxim is due the credit for drafting, and I am remiss I didn't vote on the final motion due to lower than hoped activity this year (I was taking the bar exam!), though I had supported the idea of reform for some time which is why I mentioned it in my statement. CheckUser appeals now are heard on-wiki by default, as with other blocks. We do still hear some blocks privately, though we've found that the vast majority can be heard on-wiki, which allows for greater transparency and lower overall volunteer time expenditure. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Thank you for standing as a candidate and for your service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   My greatest success has been pushing for numerous reforms, most notably my work on the Discretionary Sanctions to CT reform. I have also been particularly proud of the role I've played in helping improve our relationship with the Foundation. In a post-WP:FRAMGATE world, the Committee has repeatedly served as a moderating force on the Foundation. While I know not all contributors would agree with me, I think the Foundation means well. They just often don't get how editing works, or what the community really thinks/wants. I think one of my strong suits has been distilling community desire and communicating it to the Foundation. This has yielded enormous dividends, even if they aren't always publicly visible. I have also been a voice for unconsidered perspectives on the Committee, and often end up a lone dissenting voice. I promise that I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I just often come at issues from a different angle, and I think that has been very helpful to ensure the Committee is not voting in lockstep. Example: the removal of TNT's CU rights. I explained it at the case page, as well as in my questions last year. In a quirk of timing, we've just given TNT their CU rights back. While TNT could still prove me wrong, I think that my initial assessment, as that lone vote two years ago, was correct. I'm proud of my willingness to speak out.

   My greatest failure is that I have not drafted on more cases. My first case as drafter was the RexxS case, where I did not feel like I did a good job. One of my greatest regrets is not voting on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed_decision#RexxS_desysopped. I was so afraid to take a stance that I ended up not doing anything. When RexxS quit, it taught me an important lesson in the humanity behind every person who is front of us. But it also scared me off drafting; I only drafted one other case my first term, and I plainly admit that I haven't drafted a case this entire term (although time limitations this term were part of it as well). I may draft on the PIA5 case which is brewing, which I hope gives me a chance to redeem myself and also take on my share of the drafting load. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   As the NYTimes quoted me, I'm an optimist. I think the project is showing that free knowledge is more important than ever in an age of misinformation, and we are holding on even among a surge in AI content. In fact, the increase in AI content is making Wikipedia only more important. We've done a good job as a community in the last few years dealing with adversity. Even if imperfectly, we tackled declining numbers of new admins with a bevy of new ideas like admin elections and RfA reforms. We pushed through COVID and the interruption in meatspace, and have come back even stronger. We continue to onboard new contributors everyday, and I've been excited to see all the new users climbing the ranks, so to speak. All that is to say: I am optimistic about community! It is the people who make Wikipedia, and we continue to build something awesome. I'm hesitant to say that I'm pessimistic about any aspect of Wikipedia, given how resilient we've been. We've moved up to the fifth most visited website in the world! But I am fearful that our editor recruitment is still not matching the pace of our traffic. If I'm truly pessimistic about anything, its that we don't control how traffic comes to us. Websites like Google ultimately drive most traffic to Wikipedia, and these major tech companies are voraciously looking to make back the money they've spent on AI. Google replacing some of its knowledge bars (fed by Wikipedia with a link to us) with AI content is just the first step in a process that is out of our hands. In general, I worry that we will face graver existential threats this decade, as we cement the transition from being the "website your teacher warned you not to use" to "last bastion of knowledge." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Could you explain why you opposed releasing a redacted version of the 2021 letter to JSS, and how this is consistent with the I believe in transparency sentence of your statement? Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I opposed for a number of reasons, which overcame my usual presumption of transparency. First, I felt that JSS was attempting to Wiki-Lawyer his way out of a sanction, thus wasting our time, instead of just doing what we really wanted from him: to say he wouldn't leak confidential information. Second, the framing: he wasn't asking to appeal, or for his tools back. If he wanted to appeal, he should have just appealed. Third, there was a timing issue. We already had a motion on point passing, and it had been passing for a while. Sometimes late is worse than never; adding fuel to a fire at the wrong time does not help our mission of minimizing overall drama. Releasing the letter did not change our decision to amend the underlying motion, but it did up the drama.

   Transparency is important, but not absolute. ArbCom can't release everything it does, because we exist to handle private evidence. Transparency may mean that we try to ensure that only the bare minimum stays "hush-hush", but its also about ensuring that the community understands the process, why we do things, and how we did well/didn't. I have been a champion for transparency and owning up to my mistakes, and the committee's mistakes in general. As recent examples, I'd point to Special:Diff/1256738039 and Special:Diff/1257224122 as places where I could've said nothing and looked better for it, but chose to be honest and show folks behind the curtain, and push for us to do better. With all that said, yes we absolutely could have handled the JSS suspension with more clarity and tact, and I know that its a lesson that will make me do better in the future. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you. Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Why do you want to become an arbitrator and how do you think it helps you? Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been an arbitrator for two terms. I wanted to become one initially because I wanted to help out and make a difference, and because a dear mentor encouraged me to run. It is one of the best and most rewarding things that I do in my life. It provides a lot of transferable skills. I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing. It also meshes well with skills I've developed in the meatspace in terms of writing and conflict resolution. I'll help out and make a difference as long as the community empowers me to. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure there's an entire topic I'd need to recuse from, although birds come closest, since I do love editing about those feathery fellows. Recusal is much more focused on people unless you're the kind of Arb editing in the most contentious places. I've managed to stay out of editing most contentious places (birds just aren't that vitriolic). I know there are some people who if they came before us, I would have to recuse because I'd feel too strongly, positively or not. I think I'd mentioned it elsewhere before, but if we ever say heard a case about User:Atsme, I'd have to recuse because I could never vote to sanction her :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As both the recent request by BilledMammal, and the WPO case request showed, we do not have an adequate system designed to handle in camera cases based on private evidence. We've done such cases on an ad-hoc basis in the past, and have often been helped by cases having mixed on and off wiki evidence. But with more such requests coming in, we clearly need to build a process. One of my priorities after handling PIA5 will be making sure we design, in consultation with the community, a standard and improved way to hear private evidence. We need to ensure that parties are given notice of the evidence against them (such as by emailing them evidence in a standard manner and with a deadline) and an opportunity to be heard. I also want to ensure that there is at least some public component of this, so that ArbCom decisions don't come out of the blue, and that the community gets a chance to comment when possible.

    As for when to take private evidence cases, that comes down to what is private evidence and why. Its not like this evidence is actually top-secret. Its just that we don't allow certain kinds of content on Wikipedia because it doxxes the identity of real people. That has come to encompass most off-wiki evidence for the simple fact that its hard to tell what off-wiki evidence does or doesn't doxx someone. Because we don't want the whole community seeing private evidence, ArbCom is the body explicitly entrusted with handling it. If there weren't private matters to consider, there wouldn't be much need for ArbCom. At the end of the day though, our enforcement is limited to Wikipedia, and rightly so. Our goal is to ensure that this encyclopedia runs smoothly, so that the we can present the sum of all human knowledge. But in this ever changing world, there are an increasing number of off-wiki forces who would like to manipulate us. When that begins to affect the activities occurring on Wikipedia, in that it is affecting the editing or safety of editors, that's where we can step in. Investigating off-wiki coordination, and blocking or sanctioning responsible users, alongside implementing Contentious Topic restrictions, are absolutely something we can based on private evidence. For example, the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case, in which we took action based on Discord conversations, and laid out recommended practice for off-wiki chat platforms. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We received a considerable test run on this recently with the Marine 69-71 desysop case. But at the end of the whole affair, I'm not sure we'd really ironed out how RECALL and ArbCom work together. There will need to be at least one more test case before we really nail it down. Conceptually, I believe they should operate independently, though they may at times overlap. As I noted at the Marine 69-71 case, I analogize it to the process of many American states, which have both a popular recall mechanism (which we have just passed) and an impeachment process (ArbCom) for elected officials. Both mechanisms have their place. I do not believe that ArbCom should desysop people just because they might in turn be subject to a RECALL petition. I noted that ArbCom needs to keep its independence; we shouldn't be an extension of recall's sword. If we're going to desysop, I want it to be on our own terms. (see Special:Diff/1254468056).

    The roll of RECALL will take time to cement, and we'll have to go through the whole process a few times before the community gets a feel for it. Two scenarios exist that will test RECALL and ArbCom. First, if ArbCom hears an admin case, declines to sanction an admin, and then a RECALL petition is opened. Second, if the community opens a successful RECALL petition, subsequently votes to keep an admin at re-RfA, and then ArbCom gets a case request about that admin anyway. I think the first situation will be inevitable, though I'd hope the community would have the good grace to seriously consider re-litigating the issue. Admins are real people, and being at RECALL/RFA/in front of ArbCom sucks. In turn, I hope that ArbCom has the good grace to seriously consider re-litigating the issue should the second situation arise. Otherwise, ArbCom and RECALL should try not to consider what the other would do. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. In your answer to Q2 you mentioned your dilemma in voting on Case/RexxS. I'm not asking how, in hindsight, you would have voted. However, when hearing a case do you believe that before pronouncing its verdict, sentence, or acquittal, the committee should examine the evidence more deeply, or simply as in the practice of RfC, evaluate, report, and action the consensus of the opinion of those requesting/demanding sanctions balanced with those providing arguments for mitigation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a good question. I believe that ArbCom's role is the former. It is our job to independently assess and thoroughly investigate the evidence. Certainly, the input of the parties and peanut gallery can be very useful and insightful. Indeed, without evidence provided by the parties, we generally don't have much to go on. We are open to hearing what folks think the outcome should be, after all that's why we have the workshop phase in most cases. But at the end of the day, the vote is an arbitrator's own. ArbCom is one of the few places on Wikipedia that is not-not-a-vote, exactly for the reason that it isn't an assessment of consensus. The ability of the Committee to have clear majority votes sets it apart from most other Wikipedia processes. When used properly, our majority vote system is part of the key in ensuring that the buck stops here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your answer, Eek. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. Do you think that Arbitrators should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of prelimary evidence, or should Arbitrators try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbs should always go in with an open mind. If you think you know what the outcome is ahead of time, you'll just fall prey to confirmation bias. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. Topical and somewhat urgent question: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As it happens, I started the RfC which created the letter. Personal user data is one of the most valuable things we have, and the Foundation must do all it can to safeguard our data and identities.

    As to the blackout, I haven't voted yet. The discussion has gone from overwhelming support to overwhelming opposition in just one day. You mention urgency, but that is not something Wikipedia at large is built for. Our contemplative, no deadline process fails in the face of emergency. If this is an attempt to get me to vote quickly on the blackout proposal, I politely decline. I will not be voting on threads just in an attempt to win the electorate's heart. If I do vote, it will be in due time, and with appropriate contemplation. Hasty decisions cannot be undone. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your answer. Yes, not good at emergencies. But no, not attempt to get you to do anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a solid list of musings for sure, and despite reading it several times I couldn't find one that made me go "this is so wrong, I have to argue with HJ about this!" I will thus take the second part of your prompt, and elaborate on your musing that we should delete articles about people who are not public figures if they ask for it. We're never going to delete Taylor Swift (phew!) but the encyclopaedia will survive with one less article about an athlete/military officer/local politician/etc.

    Having worked the VRT queues, and handled boatloads of angry BLP subjects, this is at the root of so many problems that we have. When people write into VRT, they're usually complaining that their article is out of date or includes something unflattering. The trouble is, with most borderline notable folks, there are maybe three sources total about this person. Finding biography length coverage of them is impossible, and so we repeat glaring errors or out of date information because this person isn't notable enough to have quality coverage. We'd save ourselves so much headache, and the encyclopedia would be almost unchanged, if we were much more lax in deleting such articles. As to why the encyclopedia has resisted, I suspect it comes down to more fundamental issues of deletionism v. inclusionism, and a sense that anyone looking to delete their page is trying to commit some heinous coverup. The reality is I think much blander. People want their articles gone because its the 21st century, and anyone anywhere for any reason can read about what is probably not the best facet of your life. While certainly not a decision that ArbCom can affect, I long to see our BLP policy take more pity on regular joes who we really shouldn't be writing about in the first place. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26. What do you think is the purpose of the evidence phase of a case, if arbitrators (you, in this case) do their own digging and find their own evidence, leading to remedies being enacted without an evidence phase? (c.f. the Marine_69-71 case request) Banedon (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lets start with the Marine 69-71 case. I did not do my own digging. That diff was originally emailed to us by a user who later publicly acknowledged that it was them who had sent the diff to us. [1]. But I also reject the assertion that Arbitrators can never go beyond the exact links that we get sent. Especially when we investigate things like admin sockpuppetry, we are often the first line investigators. On larger cases, we will often have to trawl through discussions and discussions linked within them to get the full picture. So long as Arbitrators are acting as neutral investigators, and not partisans, such evidence may be a vital supplement. Still, as a practical matter, the Arbs generally do not do outside research during cases because it is time consuming and we have no idea what we're looking for. Not all proceedings require an evidence phase. In many admin conduct cases, the evidence is usually clear cut, and there are only a handful of incidents to examine, which have been extensively discussed at other venues like AN. At that point, opening an evidence phase, especially if an admin doesn't say they want it, is just an exercise in mudslinging and a waste of editor time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28. If arbitration had been a legal process, you doing your own digging would be juror misconduct (to quote, "Misconduct can take several forms ... When the jury member brings outside evidence that they may have found themselves into the trial which has not been allowed by the judges or lawyers and is used to create bias on the part of the juror. This new information may be used to influence their final decision). Given that, why did you not recuse? Do you believe that you doing your own digging is justified regardless? If so, why? Banedon (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC) I'm striking out this question because it was, clearly, based on a false premise. Banedon (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I explained in the prior question, I did not dig for that diff. It was emailed to us. At any rate, and as better explained above, neutral investigation is a key part of ArbCom's work and something we do all the time. As to your legal hypothetical, I do not think that we should be making ArbCom more like legal processes. As my userpage has noted for some years: If you think ArbCom is Kafkaesque or inscrutable, I pray that you never have to go through an appellate procedure in an American court. We shouldn't function like courts do, because we fundamentally lack the volunteer time as a project to do that. There's a reason lawyers get paid the big bucks: the law is absurdly complicated. Lets keep ArbCom simple. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom upholds the Five Pillars, one of which is that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Of course, determining non-neutral editing can be hard in edge cases, which is why such edge cases often end up before us. We can and have addressed the behaviors listed in the WP:CPUSH essay, because being polite is not enough. But as CPUSH cautions, ArbCom handles conduct not content. We can handle editors who are misrepresenting sources or undermining the rules to achieve their ends. But we can't blanket ban anyone with a POV, because everyone has a POV. We must avoid the temptation to choose whose POV is NPOV, lest we became content dictators. Bottom line: we have a duty to keep the encyclopedia neutral, and we will continue to address the behaviors listed in CPUSH, but we should never choose POV winners and losers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

32. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have stood in opposition to many a remedy over the years; every vote I cast on a motion that turned out the other way is a place where I would've decided differently. I respect the Committee's decisions, but I pride myself on occasionally being in the minority. To give a recent example, I felt that the Yasuke case failed to address the outstanding issues left unresolved after GamerGate. In response to a motion to rename the case to Yasuke, I noted that Special:Diff/1256701394: This feels like a bait and switch. I thought we were going to tackle the broader issues in video games that were left unsolved at the close of the GamerGate case, but we have failed to appropriately engage in that arena. That we have failed to workshop an appropriate CT, and that we focused on the narrow topic of Yasuke despite the broad scope of the case, is a failing of our duty. I hope I'm wrong, but my prediction is that culture wars in video games will rear their head again, and we'll have to hear another case to fix what we should have fixed here and now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

34. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Right now our biggest problem is our workflow. We are using email to manage our business, but it has a real tendency for issues to get lost. Unlike VRT's ticket software or ZenDesk, which have built in tracking of stale threads, email does not. I want an improvement, and we've been looking at a few options. The dream solution would be using a software that's built to handle what we do, like ZenDesk, but that would require institutional support. Short of that, we've been exploring the idea of giving clerks some sort of access to the list so that they can actually clerk the list. At any rate, we've had a recent success: we just updated our instant communication method, which should help speed up our work. That kind of technological modernization is something I've long pushed for. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

36. When a request for another arbitrator's recusal is referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what is your decision-making process? DanCherek (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

38. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard do you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

40. There are currently ten active arbitrators out of a possible 15, and arbitrator activity appears to have been the cause of some matters before the Committee stalling – for example, motions in the recent ARBPIA amendment request were only recently enacted almost three months after the initial referral from AE, and you recently noted at A/R/C that an email sent to the Committee in the summer containing private evidence may have fell by the wayside as [an] enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into. As someone who has served on ArbCom, is there anything that you think the community, the committee, and/or the WMF could/should do in order to (either directly or indirectly) improve arbitrator retention, and/or prevent arbitrator burnout? ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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. I'm sure you're expecting this one. Can you explain to me, the average editor who has no idea of all the secret ArbCom business, why I should trust you not to make the same mistakes again? To be clear, I have read your statement. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course I absolutely did expect it and I'm glad to try and get it out of the way with the first question. It was and is my contention that the "previous warning" I recieved had almost nothing to do with the issues that led to my suspension. Its status as a warning has since been downgraded by motion to "was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal." So, I believed that, while some of the other arbs didn't like what I was doing, it wasn't a huge deal. In November of last year it suddenly was a very huge deal to the point that I was being thrown out.
   Now, here's the thing: for me, it doesn't matter if I agree with what the committee and the ombuds have said was crossing the line. There are any number of non-arbitration-related policies I don't agree with, but I don't go around breaking them either. I can respect and follow a rule even if I don't care for it.Now that where the line is has been made clear, an absolute code of silence that forbids even mentioning the very existence of a conversation on the mailing list unless it is cleared with the entire committee first, I will follow that and expect the rest of the committee to do the same. My personal belief is that the committee erred in setting the bar quite so high, and they should have left the matter to this year's committee to clarify instead of suspending me, but that's not what happened. I also believe that for at least some arbs,it wasn't about what I said but where I said it, which should not be a factor but almost certainly was.
   
   I'd add, just for clarity, that I have never released anything that even comes close to personal information such as one routinely sees when using oversight or checkuser permisssions, and I never will. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Thank you for standing as a candidate and for your past service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a former member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   First off, good question Kevin. I think I was an effective arb. For whatever reaon I actually do care, on more than one occasion I tried to take a break and felt compelled to end it because there was an issue before the committee that I felt needed immediate attention. I think I maybe also convinced some arbs that we needed to stop doing "bespoke" sanctions as I firmly believe they cause more problems than they solve. I don't know that I have a lot of total failures. The committee doesn't always do what it should, but if I at least tried to make it do so. I can feel good about that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   There are some new user tools that actually work.The reply tool has caught on like nothing I've ever seen in all my years on this project. Whatever the thing is that makes edit summaries into section links is amazing, I only just really understood how to use it. The AFD closer tool is the best thing to ever happen to AFD. In short, getting some things done has gotten way easier. If only there were tools that made being an arb easy.
   
   On the minus side, I think we have rather too many rules, and too many users who insist on blind obedience to them. At a certain point it becomes impossible to even know them all, let alone follow them all.I also think there is a cutural issue where WP:IAR is fading away in favor you must follow ze rules. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Your ARCA request for clarification regarding your suspension shows the need for clear communication. Could you clarify the scope of your promise to respect confidentiality? Does "Nothing from the arbcom mailing list will ever be reposted by me" apply only to the arbcom mailing list? I'd expect the same reassurance in regard to every forum to which you have access by virtue of holding advanced tools. Cabayi (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   My suspension was entirely about leaking non-specific, non-personal information from the arbcom mailing list, and nothing else. I've never even been accused of leaking anything else. It didn't occur to me to promise not to do things I've never done to begin with. I've recently put down my thoughts about this distinction here if anyone would like to see more. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   ArbCom's mailing list was not the only mailing list you were subscribed to which had access to that information. It was on the functionaries list also. Confining your obligations to preserve the privacy of communications to just one forum seems a missed opportunity to reassure the community.Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Please refer to the essay I linked in my reply, along with my answer to Q1, which thoroughly adresses this distinction. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Accountability to the community is good, but as a group action rather than an individual action. It's the Wikipedia community that elected you to ArbCom. You divulged info to the Wikipediocracy community. To which community do you see yourself as accountable? Cabayi (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This feels like a loaded question. I don't answer loaded questions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It was intended to give you the opportunity to distance yourself from a forum which has recently started a campaign to dox arbitrators, but thanks for the answer anyway. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a gross mischacterization of what is going on there, one person saying they might do something and being yelled at for it by multiple other people is not "a campaign." And I reject the premise that one must "choose a side". One can be a critic and still disagree with other critics. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Excluding the sharing of information itself, and just concerning your steps after that: is there anything you would have done differently? Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An interesting question. So, one post set all this off, although several arbs have since commented that that particular post wasn't really that bad. I got an amail expressing their distress at seeing it. I therefore asked the WPO mods to please delete the post, which they did. As far as I know it remains hidden to this day thanks to them, I think next to nobody even saw it. The committee must have been keeping a really sharp eye on WPO for them to have seen it and gotten their ducks in a row to email me about it so quickly.
    The next thing I knew I was told there was a "totality of evidence" and that I had been explicitly issued a formal warning not to do what I had been doing, and therefore they were discussing removal from the committee. I responded to their totality of evidence point-by-point, although I suspect what some arbs were hoping I would just resign, I didn't feel the need to make this easy for them. One thing I had discovered was that the committee has historically relied too much on pressuring arbs to resign in order to keep this sort oif thing from becoming public. There's a few skeletons in that closet and I didn't want to be one of them.
    The very next day they had somehow negotiated amongst themselves the odd compromise that I was to be suspended for six months but not ejected from the committee, and had enacted that decision, along with the suspension of my functionary permissions, which are somehow still suspended even after the six months were up. I've personally never heard of a timed sanction that continues to be in effect after the period of time has ended, but that somehow makes sense to the current committee as well, apparently. So, no, actually, I would do all those things again. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know that there is a "topic area" in the content sense of the word, that I would need to recuse from. My content work is very generalized and I don't enjoy editing in highly contentious areas.
    However I have in the past recused from entire cases or abstained from voting on particular findings or remedies where I had history, good or bad, with the user whose conduct was under examination, even when I knew I could be impartial. The standard that I have followed and would expect others to follow is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is clearly an issue that needs some clarification, and if elected, and even if not, I will endeavor to get the committee to do so. "Secret" evidence is usually not secret at all, it is usually entirely public, but on some other website, and the outing policy hamstrings what can and cannot be publicly posted on-wiki. That is a matter the community may want to addrss as the committee can't modify policy.
    As to when the committee should accept a case, if there is a case request based entirely on private evence, it should be handled privately, although some sort of tactful public notice that the case is underway may be in order. It does appear that in the still-pending case request, the committee dropped the ball by not adequetly replying when the evidence was first sent to them several months ago, That is an ongoing issue with the committee, but one that seems to be more acute this past year. If someone sends private evidence, that should be treated as a de facto request for a private case. The submitting user should get a yes-or-no answer as they eventually do with an on-wiki case request.
    In this past year we saw a hybrid case where some evidence was public and some was not, and I would imagine that is possible more often than not and probably a good model to follow. The committee often has to weigh the individual right to privacy, which on Wikipedia, extends far further than most other websites, and the right of the broader community to know about things like canvassing and harassment. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A functioning recall process might reduce the number of admin conduct cases brought before the committee, although it will probably always remain an option to got the route of a full case. The committee takes very few cases these days so there isn't a pressing need to lighten the load on that front, and the slow pace of a full case gives the parties time to really consider what is best.
    The committee also recently demonstrated that in more obvious cases it can speedily resolve admin conduct issues by motion, something I have been a proponent of for a long time and was happy to see put into practice. It resolved a painfully unfortunate situation much quicker than either recall or a full case would have, that's a good thing.
    The idea for recall was sold as being more lightwieght and less drama than taking an admin to ArbCom. So far it seems like the opposite. I'm hopeful that the current "reworkshop" will fix some of those glaring issues. Otherwise we would be stuck with an alternative process that, frankly, seems terrible so far. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of prelimary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When the committee accepts a case, that is an indication that the preliminary statements have made a compelling argument that there is a problem that needs looking into, and nothing more. Cases often take unexpected turns, for example the one that has just been closed was expected to be an examination of behabvior a broad topic area, and it turned out to that it stayed focussed on a single article.
    ArbCom exists to stop disruption, not to punish, and while one cannot help having a rough idea of what may be the result, arbs should always keep an open mind and remember that the every name on the screen represents a real person. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. At first sight it might seem as if this is a repeat of the question above, but taking note of your quip in your answer to Q3: you must follow ze rules, there are indeed jurisdictions where this is rigorously applied and where it is impossible to avoid a penalty for even the most innocent and minor breaches of an often silly law. Hence when hearing a case do you believe that before pronouncing its verdict, sentence, or acquittal, the committee should examine the evidence more deeply, or simply take the filing accuser's and the pile on claims of evidence at face-value and impose the maximum sanction/punishment? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned in that same answer above I do feel the project, as it has grown, has lost some of the spirit that defined its earlier days. That's not entirely a bad thing, a lot of dumb stuff happened back in the "cowboy admin" days, but I am disheartened by the seeming tendency to see comments that reflect a "rules are rules and that's it" attitude.
    Of course, once a matter reaches the committee it is rarely the result of a single action but rather an ongoing problem that the community has tried and failed to resolve. Evidence doesn't lie, but it can be misrepresented or misinterpreted and in my experience the committee routinely simply ignores evidence submissions that don't actually show any wrongdoing. Perhaps ignoring it is not enough though, arbitrators are perfectly free to call out bad or misrepresented evidence as being just that. There are sometimes cases where two or more editors clearly despise one another and may resort to dirty tricks to try and make a point and the committee should always be cognizant of that.
    As to maximum punishment, I don't think that is generally the committee's goal. When a users' conduct is brought before the committee, it isn't because they are someone here entirely in bad faith, we just block people like that and move on. So we know going in that every party to a case was, at least at some point, genuinely here trying to improve the encyclopedia (with rare exceptions). So it's not exactly fun to have to tell them they have failed to do that and the committee quite often goes for the type of sanction that is intended to stop the disruptive behavior while keeping the otherwise good-faith editor i.e. topic bans or interaction bans. Sometimes that isn't an option, and a user has truly lost their way and a site ban is the only remaining solution, but it should never be the only option considered. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your answer, Beeb. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24. Topical and somewhat urgent question: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been vaguely watching the general issue, but I will preface my comments by saying I don't really see what this has to do with the arbitration committee.
    I certainly do not like the idea that the foundation would "out" users, but at the same time I feel like there's a lot of second guessing what the lawyers are up to. Things aren't always what they appear to be on the surface and the foundation isn't going to publicly share its legal strategy. It is also worth noting that the foundation doesn't actually know the real life identities of anyone who isn't already disclosing that information, so it's entirely possible all the court is going to get is a stale list of shared ip adresses, making the disclosure essentially meaningless. In short, I don't believe we have enough information to be sure we actually know what is going on.
    I don't support the blackout proposal. Blacking out the entirety of en.wp for several days won't do anything besides irritating the heck out of the millions of people who rely on the site and don't know or care about a court case in India. We are here to create and maintian an encyclopedia, and I don't see how shutting down the entire site helps anyone. The open letter is on track to hit nine hundred signatures in the near future, I think that is a suffiently clear statement that this deeply concerns large numbers of Wikipedians. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I quite agree that it's not much about ArbCom, and more about you as an editor and Wikipedian. Many thanks for your thoughtful and illuminating answers. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I didn't see much there that I totally disagree with besides Editors (or small groups) who successfully research, write, and nominate a featured article should be allowed a by-line if they want it.
    That's just not the deal you made when you signed up. If anyone is curious who wrote a particualr article, the history tab is right there. This also begs the question of future edits, when do they get their byline? Does the original author get sole credit forever no matter what?
    Plenty of heavy content contributors maintain a "trophy rack" on their user page and I think that's just fine, there's nothing wrong with being proud of the results of your hard work. Appending their name to an actual article text is something else. If you want that, go edit some site that allows a single user to maintain total control of an article. They do exist. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When such matters are brought before the committee it has an obligation to recognize disruptive behavior of any kind for what it is and take appropriate action to stop it. In cases of POV pushing that could involve a topic ban from the subject area in question or a WP:CTOP designation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally, I often advocated in the past that any admin that needs to be subject to an ArbCom-level editing restriction is manifestly unfit to be an admin, but getting other arbs to see it that way has been an uphill battle.
    I also think more admin conduct cases can and should be handled by motion, if you're looking for specifics the most glaring example is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder.Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

32. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So, all arbs are equal, no one of them has any more say than the others, and that is as it should be, I don't think the committee needs a chairperson or whatever, but it has occured to me that it could use a coordinator. No special authority. just someone who keeps things on track and reminds other arbs of things that need doing that aren't being paid enough attantion. There is often one arb already sort of doing this unofficially, but maybe it is time to make it an actual position.
    
    I also think there is an issue with arbs being marked active but not actively particpating in on-wiki committee business, and this has led to case requests and other situations that require a vote to languish far longer than they should. Committee procedures already state that an arb is considered inactive if they do not participate in committee business for seven days, but this is rarely put into practice. I'd go one further and say that if an arbitrator does not vote on an open matter for seven days, they should be considered inactive or abstaining from that matter regardless of whether they are active in other matters. Perhaps the procedures can be changed to reflect this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

34. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Things should only be kept private when there is a compelling reason to do so. So, checkuser data,suppressed edits, links to user's other online accounts or real names, those are all things covered by policy that must be kept private. The committee doesn't have a choice in that.
    How arbitrators voted in a case based on that sort of material is not something they are obligated to keep private, so if they are doing so it is by choice. I can't really think of any reason to make that choice. If you're ashamed of the way you voted, that's a good indicator that you shouldn't have voted that way

36. In response to your above answer: several arbs have since commented that that particular post wasn't really that bad. I got an amail expressing their distress at seeing it. I therefore asked the WPO mods to please delete the post, which they did. As far as I know it remains hidden to this day thanks to them, I think next to nobody even saw it. I feel as though some of the questions you're getting are "in the know" with respect to what you posted to WPO, and the rest of us have simply no idea what you posted or any concept of how much of a "leak" it was or wasn't. I am reassured by statements like for clarity, that I have never released anything that even comes close to personal information such as one routinely sees when using oversight or checkuser permisssions. For forbids even mentioning the very existence of a conversation on the mailing list, can you clarify just in general for us that aren't privy, what is the general category of what you posted that caused all this drama? Was it truly something like "on the ArbCom mailing list, we are discussing X"? I see the statement that it was not direct quotes but rather general information but I just feel as though that's so vague that I'm having a hard time weighing it against the reaction of ArbCom. I would like to Support, and if what you posted was something like just a general mention that X is a topic of discussion, I will feel comfortable doing so.

    I kind of have to keep some of it somewhat vague, but I will try to adress the points you raise.
    The post that directly led to the initiation of the case against me was me posting about the existence of an on-list discussion about a specific user, and the result of that discussion. As I've indicated, there were no direct quotes from anyone or any other hint of who said what, just that the discussion was had and had been decisisve. I only even brought it up on WPO after the user in question was revealed to be a long-term sock of banned troll. This was the post the WPO mods hid when I asked them to, and I beleive is still hidden/deleted. I still don't think this should be a secret but the committee was upset that I took it upon myself to make that decision, which is not entirely unfair.
    However, several arbs have said that was simply the final straw, and they were much more upset about another incident from several months before that which had not been discussed with me before that. This is fairly public and still out in the open: Gitz6666 was blocked from another WMF wiki, and then globally locked, on the pretense that he had done something extremely out of line, but he wasn't told what this reason actually was. For some weird reson, someone told him to appeal to the en.wp ArbCom, which he did. In the course of the committee talking with the stewards, trying to figure out what exactly was going on, a steward explained what the accusation was to the committee. Gitz posted quite a number of times at WPO about his situation, and while I was skeptical at first and told him as much, I gradually began to feel the situation was manifestly unfair.
    After questioning why this action had been taken against him for some time, he guessed the correct reason for the block/lock. I made a post saying it was too bad I couldn't tell him if that was exactly the right reason, because I couldn't say anything. I was obviously being sarcastic and deliberately telegraphing that he had indeed gotten it right. So, I made a choice to help someone, whom I did not know in any capacity prior to this, and who was caught in a beuracratic nightmare. People throw around the word "Kafkaesque" but this is literally the entire plot of Kafka's only full novel, The Trial.
    I think part of what irritaed the other arbs about this is that the committee does not always have the best relationship with the stewards. I agree that it's unfortunate that this is the case, but I didn't agree that a person wrongly blocked for reasons they weren't being told should just sit there while the committee hoped that the stewards and the admins from that other project would do the right thing. So, I once again did take it upon myself. I don't think for a second that the committee would have voted to drelease this information as it actually was not anything to do with en.wp or the committee and only came our way because someone gave Gitz bad advice. I could have done it by private mesage or email and nobody would know it was me, but I generally don't do things that way.
    It's perhaps worth noting that one of the stewards involved in all this was removed during this years' confirmations largely over their role in this incident, and a number of current and former arbs from en.wp made comments that they should be removed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

38. There are currently ten active arbitrators out of a possible 15, and arbitrator activity appears to have been the cause of some matters before the Committee stalling – for example, motions in the recent ARBPIA amendment request were only recently enacted almost three months after the initial referral from AE, and it has been noted that an email sent to the Committee in the summer containing private evidence may have fell by the wayside as [an] enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into. As someone who has served on ArbCom, is there anything that you think the community, the committee, and/or the WMF could/should do in order to (either directly or indirectly) improve arbitrator retention, and/or prevent arbitrator burnout? ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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 as a candidate and for your past service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a former member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Kevin, and thank you for your questions. I like to think that I had more successes than failures, though many of my successes are less visible, and I've got quite a few to think back upon. The thing I'm most proud of, is my part in encouraging the responsibility for "child protection" to be moved from the community to the foundation, even all these years later. Besides that clear point, my main successes are harder to quantify - I have helped keep the committee focussed during some tough times, helped reduce controversy internally and externally with a well placed word.
   With regard to failures - the places we've lost contributors stick with me. It may be that we needed to take that final tough decision to remove soemone from the encyclopedia, or it may be that an otherwise good long term editor needs to have user-rights or even just status removed. If that individual subsequently disengages, we as a community has lost something, and that's a failure. Similarly, if an editor leaves because of a decision we've made - then we haven't been clear enough about the reasons and our choices - again, that's a failure. As I say, these things stick with me and help me try to make the right choices, earlier in the future, so that we don't get into these situations.

4. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Over the past couple of years, Wikipedia as a project has moved from "the" reference, to "a" reference to the man on the street. All that lovely Google juice is still pointing over here, but AI is summarising the information for the consumer far earlier, and I believe the people reading our pages has shrunk. And so the pessimism - I do believe the pace of LLMs, and ways of transforming that information into being processed by individuals has started to push our wonderful project to obsolescence - less people reading means less editors fixing, and risks of manipulation of content. Yet - there is optimism to be seen too - we do have more active editors than we have in years. The LLMs need training, and our content is good and available - so we are still having an effect on those future generations. More to the point, those who do not trust the AI still have us here, solid and reliable. We're not going anywhere, there's budget to keep us here for years to come. We need to protect what we have and be open to new and wonderful ways it will be used, giving knowledge to the world.

6. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The standard should be "we shouldn't do it unless absolutely necessary". I don't like secret evidence cases, they're not visible to the community who are our backstop - and so there needs to be a very good reason for one. As for the rest - the accused should have the right to respond to evidence against them, though depending on the scenarios, they may not have a right to "face the accuser" - we're not a court - but equally, I find it hard to picture scenarios where it's got to Arbcom and the accused cannot know who has made the accusation.
   The one scenario I can think of was WP:FRAM - but that was Arbcom trying to fix a mess of how it was handled, rebuild a fractured community and deal with the underlying issue, all with our hands tied on what we could see and what we could say. I'd rather not go through that again.

   It's been done. In the Racepacket case, ArbCom issued a finding against me based on secret evidence. Not only do I not know who the accuser was, but ArbCom did not disclose to me the nature of the accusation, leaving me unable to defend myself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The recall system isn't ready yet - I'm not sure it was ever really ready enough to pass the RfC, despite the fact I am for recall and believe such things should be in the hands of the community. From an Arbcom point of view, I do not believe it should affect our way of working - besides being evidence that dispute resolution has been attempted. This would be similar to the historic situation, if someone had initiated a voluntary recall, and then gone to Arbcom afterwards.
   I'm afraid this makes things more unpleasant for administrators, as they may have to face multiple reviews of the same incident - but the systems, such as they are, are mutually exclusive.

10. In a previous ACE I asked you this question: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters? To which you answered: I’d prefer that the arbitration committee does no investigation themselves - where evidence is incorrect, I would expect that to be highlighted by other case participants. In the pure hypothesis that all the participants - for whatever reason - were accusers, but it had been pointed out by the accused that the evidence may require investigation, would your answer be different today? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I did say that and I stand by it. Before I address your hypothetical, I'd like to explain a little bit more about why I believe this. The committee deals with all sorts of cases, across the entire breadth of Wikipedia. The committee are not experts in those fields, we have millions of topics and just and handful of arbitrators. So, the committee members already have a lot to manage, to understand and weigh accuracy of what is presented. Add on top of that, cases should be written in a manner that future editors can understand not only what the decision was, but why it was made.
    And so to your hypothetical, if we have a small number of participants, one "accused" subject and the remainder on raising evidence, the subject claims that the evidence requires investigation. I would not expect Arbitrators to go looking for more evidence, in fact I would actively discourage it. I would be asking the subject to expand on their point - to give that context of why it requires investigation. I have no issue with arbitrators reading around the issue to understand the context, especially if it is presented to them, by any case participant. There's a difference between "looking for evidence" and "reading the context".

    'Looking for evidence' is not quite the same as examining the veracity of the evidence where doubt has been expressed. In that previous ACE, you did continue by saying: What the committee does have a duty to do is weigh the evidence, making a decision on the balance between level of the negative impact and the quality / quantity of the evidence provided - in other words, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence, patterns should be shown etc. I think that covers it. Thank you for your answer, WTT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And all that still holds true too. Worm^TT(talk) 17:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of prelimary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Committee members should never go in looking to implement a specific remedy. If the case is cut and dried enough that there is a clear outcome, it should be handled by motion. You never know what evidence will be presented during a case, and they can turn significantly away from the case request structure - so being willing to move away from preconceptions is essential.

14. "I have achieved a lot as an Arb, and am proud of my contributions". Can you tell us about some of things you have achieved? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. You've been away a while. What have you done to catch up with changes within the community? How will you re-embed yourself other than serving on ArbCom? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 03:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26. If a request for another arbitrator's recusal was referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what would be your decision-making process? DanCherek (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30. There are currently ten active arbitrators out of a possible 15, and arbitrator activity appears to have been the cause of some matters before the Committee stalling – for example, motions in the recent ARBPIA amendment request were only recently enacted almost three months after the initial referral from AE, and it has been noted that an email sent to the Committee in the summer containing private evidence may have fell by the wayside as [an] enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into. As someone who has served on ArbCom, is there anything that you think the community, the committee, and/or the WMF could/should do in order to (either directly or indirectly) improve arbitrator retention, and/or prevent arbitrator burnout? ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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 as a candidate. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I guess I'll start with the pessimism, because right now there's a lot to be pessimistic about. The rise of LLMs presents a huge bump in the road forward for the project. LLM use/misuse is already something we're seeing fairly often, and one of the places I see it most often is with UPE/spam/vandal accounts interacting with administrators after being blocked. That eats up the already limited time of those that do the hard work of patrolling unblocks, and as the models evolve and improve it will become more and more difficult to spot their use quickly. There's also an issue with LLM interaction on noticeboards and RFCs which is a time killer for everyone engaging in good faith. On top of that, we also have LLM created articles being dumped into mainspace, and LLM generated prose being tucked into articles. We're at the beginning of common LLM use, so we can only expect this to increase in the future.

   LLM is also likely to contribute to a decrease in traffic, which leads to a decrease in the pool of possible editors. Google and Bing putting their LLM generated response to search queries, with the result often paraphrased from Wikipedia, means there is less impetus for search engines to drive traffic here, and fewer searchers will find it necessary to go all the way to Wikipedia when the nice AI box tells them what year Shakira was born.

   Another thing I'm pessimistic about is state and corporate actors influencing Wikipedia through policies, laws, and lawsuits. We're already seeing more lawsuits incoming after the ANI lawsuit[2] and many are rightly concerned about the possible curtailing of freedom of speech where Wikipedia is hosted.

   As for optimism, seeing the community response to how the ANI suit is playing out makes me optimistic that the community is willing to take a stand against such attempted manipulations, and hopefully as we see this play out we'll find that the WMF has our backs. I'm not normally a fan of slippery slope arguments, but standing against this type of interference is important, and I feel the community is willing to take that stand. I'm also optimistic having seen the times Wikipedia has already survived through. The internet is a vastly different place than it was 23+ years ago, and yet the project continues trucking along, attracting new editors, many of which are younger than Wikipedia itself.

   I'm also optimistic seeing some of the recent reforms, e.g. administrator elections that netted us a pile of new admins, and even the community recall process which is important for administrator accountability, despite its teething and growing pains. These reforms and new processes show that the community is working hard to address long-term issues, like both declining administrator numbers and lack of a community method to desysop, and make the us stronger in the long run.

4. Please identify a substantive decision of the committee that you disagreed with within the last 3 years, and explain why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   There's a few that I've disagreed with, but that is different than thinking a decision was wrong. The one I disagreed with the most was granting Mschwartz1 extended-confirmed to allow them to participate in arbitration. Obviously, I'm not party to the private discussion that resulted in that granting, but from my public vantage it was a serious own goal in both our ability to resist external pressures and evenly and fairly applying WP:ECR. That allowance led to a single complaint, generally viewed as meritless, lodged in the wrong location, and quickly hatted, and at least 0.5 tomats of mostly disapproving discussion. Without knowing exactly what led to the committee's decision I can't say it was wrong, but from everything I saw it wasn't the right choice. A large amount of drama and spilled bytes could have been avoided by taking the request by email and deciding if it had enough merit to open a case or place before the community before comment.

6. ScottishFinnishRadish, you have pushed for recent ARBPIA AE complaints to be referred to ArbCom. If elected, would you recuse from an ARBPIA5 case that has in part arose from such referral(s)? Thank you. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I can't find the diff, but someone told me they would be presenting evidence about me in any case, so that alone is more than enough for recusal. If that were not the case, I would still recuse because I have too much administrative involvement, read too many of the discussions, and placed too many sanctions to expect that my actions haven't already had an impact on the topic area. Additionally, having already proposed sanctions against a number of likely parties any involvement in the case as an arbitrator would draw reasonable criticism of going into the case with my mind made up. So yes, I would be turbo-recused.

   Thank you for your response, ScottishFinnishRadish! starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I've started writing a reply to this several times, and have probably deleted hundreds of words so far trying to wrangle a clear answer out of an incredibly complicated question. It's made even more complicated due to the broad strokes when accepting a case based on secret evidence should be considered based on the specific circumstances. Here I am trying again, so we'll see if I can clearly get my thoughts down about this.

   What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? I think the simple answer to this is that Arbcom should accept a case based on secret evidence when revealing the evidence could revictimize, out, or otherwise harm or reveal private information about editors or living people. There are a lot of situations where the evidence in a case, even just the basic facts, could cause harm or reveal private information about someone. The answers get more complicated when you have an actual situation in front of you, and you have to weigh transparency against what might be revealed by making evidence public, and you take into account the definition of outing that we use on en.wiki. As connecting an account on Wikipedia to an account on another platform meets the threshold a lot of evidence, especially when dealing with off-wiki collaboration issues, will fall under the umbrella of secrecy. If you have some scenarios you'd like me to opine on feel free to ask. Obviously I would strive to maintain the maximum possible transparency^{I bet you say that to all the boys}, but I've also provided private evidence to Arbcom in the past so I understand that it can be necessary.

   Using the example of the current case request I'd say that anything connecting en.wiki accounts to undisclosed off-wiki accounts has to be private by policy.

   What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? This is really the meat and potatoes of the problem. Arbcom should be providing secret evidence against editors whenever possible, redacted if necessary. When dealing with coordination it's easier, though you still have to be careful around outing. Providing an editor with evidence that someone with their username was coordinating with someone else with the same name as another Wikipedia editor risks violating the outing policy by linking an on-wiki account with off-wiki account to a third party. Because of that, care must be taken in how the evidence is redacted and provided. For the community, a statement that evidence was presented that editors X and Y were colluding off-site and the general strength of the evidence would most likely be safe to release.

   It becomes significantly more hairy when dealing with harassment or outing. As an example, if private evidence is received that an account believed to be an editor has outed another editor off-wiki providing that evidence to the editor could lead to spreading the personal information. In the case that the editor was not the one who outed someone else, they may have received a way to locate that personal information. The same goes with harassment, you don't want to draw further attention to the harassment and if there is a chance that the editor in question wasn't responsible for the harassment you'd be leading them to the harassment. What, if anything, could be provided to the accused editor depends on exactly what the situation is. Arbcom should strive to provide as much detail to the accused as possible while still preventing drawing further attention to harassment or personal information. In these situations it's even more difficult to provide information to the community but what can be, even if in the vaguest terms, should be. In the situation where the harassment is of a BLP via Wikipedia editing it's also dicey because when someone ends up Arbcom blocked it is likely that their contributions will be examined, and any statements from Arbcom could provide clues to harassment, and living people should enjoy the same protections as editors.

   Again, this is a lot easier to answer with specific scenarios, but the short answer is Arbcom should be providing as much as possible while avoiding revictimizing people and protecting personal information.

10. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'll start what wouldn't change, and that is level 1 and level 2 desysops. In my opinion, once the recall process is nailed down and polished a bit more it should be the primary method of "lost the trust of the community" desysops. Arbcom should be the last resort, and since there is a path to test the trust of the community without Arbcom there needs to be cause for it to be handled by the committee. There are situations where it may still be necessary for Arbcom to address the question of desysopping, e.g. accusations of misuse of tools that non-admins cannot easily review or private evidence. I don't think we're quite at the point of Arbcom declining administrative behavior cases because recall exists but as the process gets tidied up I expect that we'll be there soon.

12. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of prelimary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think if committee members think after the preliminary evidence that there is a specific remedy that would address the situation without the need for a case they should propose a motion. Once a case has been accepted committee members should be make their decisions based on the evidence presented, as well as their own analysis of the evidence and the analysis at the workshop.

14. If I understand your self disclosure correctly, you have an account on WPO, what is your view of Wikipediocracy and would you recuse yourself from any potential ARBCOM cases as a result? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that was a self-disclosure, but yes I have an account on WPO. I assume your question is about the forum, rather than the blog. My view on it is that it is similar to a lot of other social media platforms. There are people I like and that I don't like, there are discussions I'm interested in and not interested in, and there is both positive and negative behavior. I think an off-wiki platform for editors and non-editors to interact and critique Wikipedia is important, and in general the discussions stay on topic. Much like any platform there are people who sometimes behave in a way I, and others, disagree with.

    As for participating there I don't see a reason to discourage it. It's plain that a large number of editors read the forum so any outing or harassment still has the same effect. When editors are part of the community there they can speak out when they disagree with information that is being posted and make their case to the site administration. They can even, as AtG did, leave in protest over what has been called a campaign to dox arbitrators. This campaign is a single forum participant who hasn't actually started a campaign to dox anyone and there has been a fair amount of pushback from other forum members about the threats to do so. Between the the options of everyone still reading the forum and seeing whatever is posted there or developing relationships and arguing for limits to things like doxing while enjoying some banter I'll take the second every time. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM, and WPO ISAFORUM and sometimes I want to talk about the bed I built, or discuss lumber mill best practices, or talk about gardening, or wave my hands wildly about the election.

    I don't see a need to recuse from anything dealing with WPO anymore than any other platform I casually use, but I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise.

16. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First, we'll start with Editors (or small groups) who successfully research, write, and nominate a featured article should be allowed a by-line if they want it. Ownership issues aside, since we're trying to avoid WP:OMGWTFBBQ, I eagerly anticipate the ANI threads about who gets a byline, what percentage of edits, prose, or ephemeral research qualifies and editor for that, how much does the article have to change in order to remove the byline, and do we remove the byline if the editor is indef blocked, community banned, arbcom banned, or glocked. Let's add to that if the FA was, say, Asian News International, does the byline imply a higher responsibility for the content? Do the FA reviewers also get credit, because that's a lot of work. Why is that the one process that leads to a by-line? I wrote Shit flow diagram and it has very few other substantial edits so it should really say ScottishFinnishRadish's Shit flow diagram! I think it's opening a can of worms that will provide very little benefit with a heaping serving of drama.

    I'll also give you a bonus with processes like AfD and RfA are called discussions and many Wikipedians go to great lengths not to call them votes. They are votes. We expect editors to provide a rationale for their vote (more so at AfD than RfA), but strength of argument rarely trumps numerical superiority (and never at RfA). RFA is a different beast, and although the discussion is a necessary part of it it's still basically a straight vote. Cratchat should just be about discounting any votes that are obviously contrary to policy or in bad faith when striking them may change the outcome. I guess my question for you would be: do you consider RFCs to be one of the processes that is actually just a vote? I've closed a lot of discussions and I take NOTAVOTE to heart when doing so. Numbers still matter a lot, and all arguments being equal a decent majority is enough to carry the RFC. However, often when I'm closing an RFC or other discussion I see plenty of bad arguments, responses contrary to policy, and responses that don't address counterarguments. I routinely downweigh or discount those responses. This often leads to a close review, but I think that as none of my closes has been overturned that the community still broadly believes that these discussions are not a straight vote. I think most editors simultaneously wish that we followed NOTAVOTE a bit closer, but understand why closes often just follow the majority.

18. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their role is the same as with any other conduct issue that the community cannot handle. Arbcom is uniquely positioned to handle large and complex cases where CPUSH and NPOV are at issue as the only body that can hold formal structured cases. There are more Arbs, even with the current inactivity, than there are admins who regularly work AE, the case pages are nice and divided for each editor to present their own evidence, there is a separate section for analysis, and separate talk pages for other discussions. When we're dealing with NPOV, CPUSH, and misrepresentation accusations going in all directions involving a dozen long term editors that's the only method we have available that has a chance of sussing out what the real issues are and what can be done about it. Arbcom also has the numbers to share the load of pushback (or the shit sandwich as I've often called it) when difficult choices are made.

20. You have imposed a lot of sanctions under ARBPIA. Do you consider that you specialise in that area, or do you enforce all the contentious topic proportionally but that happens to be the busiest? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't specialize in that area, it's just that the topic is such a tinderbox right now that it needs an admin to stay on top of it just to keep ECR and 1RR under control. If you look at my unilateral sanctions in the past year most of them are blocks or tbans of editors who turned out to be socks, or ECR/1RR sanctions. I do spend more time patrolling the area than others because there is such a high level of activity and the rampant socking and a high burden of CTOP notification and ECR enforcement. Also, once you're known as the admin that's watching the area people reach out, so you get even more activity in the topic area. On top of that, reading through probably over a million of words in discussions it gives me some insight into behavior and how things are progressing. That's why I try to preempt or conclude some of the arguments by starting RFCs on issues where it's needed. Again, that's not specialization, it's just what I've always tried to do. I get involved with many of the other CTOPs through AE, since I try to look into every report and keep things moving.

    Thank you for your answers to both my questions. To be clear, this one was not intended to be accusatory—neither answer would have been a problem, but if informs what kind of arbitrator you would be. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. What have you done to prepare yourself to understand the arbitration committee's workload, and to manage your time to handle it? isaacl (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've closed roughly 40% of all the AE threads opened so far this year and participated the large majority of the rest, while also working AIV, UAA, ANI/AN, and BLPN, and doing various other patrolling and handling some off-wiki requests. This wasn't done to prepare for Arbcom, but a lot of the work involves similar themes. Not having been on the committee I can't say that I know exactly what to expect, but based on the reflections and essays available I'm fairly sure that the workload won't be beyond what I can handle. Also, like I said, I checked with my wife and she said it's okay if I use my chromebook in the evening.

24. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is one of those questions where you'd think the answer would be a simple, "Transparency, yes. Always release the vote tallies!" That was my first immediate thought, but then I stewed on it a bit while my wife browsed garland. In situations where the subject of the vote is private and there is a split vote, publishing the tally could lead to even more questions that can't be answered. If you see a 8/7 split that results in an Arbcom ban, rather than just that there was a ban, especially if the editor on the receiving end is in good standing and hasn't appeared to do anything you're drawing even more attention to it and causing a lot more discussion of what you're trying to keep private. That also puts a target on one side or the other, or both, depending on the social capital and reputation of the editor. Releasing the tally can also tell a story that isn't true, in that you might have am 8/7 split, but the range of opinions ranges from 100% support of a ban down to just shy of supporting a ban, so although the vote is close the actual consensus might be a bit more solid. All in all it's a lot more complicated a question than it initially seems. All of that said, I'm still firmly on the "Transparency, yes. Always release the vote tallies!" side of things, but I can't say there would never be a situation in which I could be convinced keeping the tally secret was the right move.

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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 as a candidate. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the thing that makes me feel optimistic right now is that we seem to be seeing something of a sea-change regarding the over-reliance on newsmedia as a reliable source. This has been something of a pet issue of mine for some time and I have been a minority voice here. However recently I've been seeing more and more editors discussing newsmedia as being something that should not be relied on when other options are available. This is excellent. On the other hand I'm somewhat pessimistic about how Wikipedia still has failed to address some of its systemic biases. This, combined with increased judicial pressure from post-democratic states, is a risk to the project and needs to be firmly addressed.

4. Please identify a substantive decision of the committee that you disagreed with within the last 3 years, and explain why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the arbitration committee has been over-reliant on extended confirmed protection. Our ideals are that "anybody can edit Wikipedia" - however the proliferation of ECR pages has made it so there is an increasingly large caveat to that statement. I would prefer to rely on other remedies before this one.

6. Thank you for standing as a candidate. Are there any topic areas that you would consider yourself involved in, to the extent that you would recuse from any cases related to it? BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The arbitration committee policy is as follows: "An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from any aspect of a case, with or without explanation and is expected to do so where they have a significant conflict of interest. Typically, a conflict of interest includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties. Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal." I would adhere to that policy as appropriate. In addition, I would recuse myself from those issues presently before the arbitration committee to which I have made comment should those remain on the docket after the close of this election.

8. Followup: Recently, an administrator was deemed involved in relation to the Israel-Hamas war due to their participation in the topic area. Given your participation is both more extensive and more partisan (they didn’t use a pejorative to refer to one side, for example), why do you not consider yourself involved? BilledMammal (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   If you look at my article space edit history you will see I don'tedit much in Israel / Palestineand when I do it's almost always in directresponse to a conversation at WP:RS/N or WP:NPOV/N. I rarely stick around article tqlk for I/P articles for long and almost never make more than one edit to topic area in a day. My general engagementwith the topicarea is routine. Recently I have been involved with several discussions at arbitration enforcement and arbitration cases. This is becauseI feel these arbitration actions represent an abuseof process and that those editors responsible for making public accusationson private evidence or opening three enforcement actions on one editor in short succession all based on the flimsiest of pretexts should face sensure. I have committedto recusingmyself from those specific arbitration cases. I will not commit to recusing myself from a topic area where I am only marginally involved on the basis of one heated comment.

10. Have you ever been involved - whether as a recipient or a sender - with off-wiki canvassing? BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly I find this question offensive. You have no legitimate cause to suspect me of any such activity and this line of questioning is inappropriate. With that being said I will give you a straightforward and honest answer anyway: No.

12. Have you ever been paid to edit or edited on behalf of another?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No.

14. Why have you never requested the administrator toolset at WP:RFA nor gone through admin elections? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a good question. I've thought about it. I have friends who are administrators and maintain collegial relations with more administrators. I do keep an eye on WP:AN and WP:AN/I and post to those boards relatively regularly. The truth is that, while I've thought about it on occasion, it never really seemed like Wikipedia lacked for administrators. Most of what I like to do in Wikipedia is to either participate in noticeboard discussions or edit extant articles. So since what I generally like to do on Wikipedia does not require it and since it didn't seem like something that was needed I didn't see any reason that would benefit the project for me requesting these tools.

16. As you have never held any advanced rights on the English Wikipedia other than being extended-confirmed, what history of actions on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects show that you can be trusted with access to the checkuser and oversight tools that would be granted to sitting arbitrators? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Being perfectly honest it never occurred to me as I was volunteering that being an arbitrator would give me access to those tools. I did actually make a request for mentorship as a SPI clerk some time ago (although that seems to have gone nowhere in particular) and have some interest in sock-puppet investigations and assisting with that part of the project - something that might have, in time, led to me requesting CheckUser privileges. What it comes down to is, unlike with the administrator role, I saw a need for arbitrators, with fewer volunteers than open seats at the time I put up my hand, and I felt it was a position where my volunteer energy would be of value for the project.

18. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm generally not fond of private evidence and believe it should only be used when there is an extremely compelling reason for making said evidence private. Otherwise I believe arbitration proceedings should be as transparent as possible. It's supposed to be a method of resolving public disputes - not a private court system. I think I know precisely which arbitration case this is kind of asking about as I was quite vocal about that issue and what I'd say is that the handling of that issue - a public accusation built around private evidence - was the worst of both worlds. It was non-transparent, provided insufficient opportunities for the accused parties to meaningfully respond, and simultaneously potentially stained the perception of comportment of editors who may have done nothing wrong. My opinion is that a private arbitration case for which a compelling requirement for in-camera response exists should be private start to finish and should include private contact of involved parties to get their responses to any evidence against them.

20. As others have noted above, you are running for ArbCom as a non-administrator. My question does not concern the "philosophical" aspects of electing a non-admin to the Committee (I can see both pros and cons), but the practical aspect. It is sometimes necessary for arbitrators to review deleted pages or deleted revisions while evaluating editor conduct, which only admins can do. If elected, would you plan to (1) run an RfA at that point (I have no doubt you would pass), (2) request some sort of temporary admin privileges to be used in connection with your arbitration duties (that would seem sensible, but we don't currently have a mechanism for it), (3) ask for oversight rights and use those to look up the deleted revisions (if that works technically, which I'm not sure about), (4) rely on other arbs to look up the deleted revisions, or (5) something else I haven't thought of? Thank you and good luck in the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I said before that I hadn't requested adminship as it wasn't necessary to do the sorts of things I've been doing on the project. If I'm in a position where that changes, and those volunteer responsibilities I'm taking on necessitate that responsibility, I suppose, yes, I would request adminship. Heck, who knows, it might let me lend a hand on sock puppet investigations too.

22. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that it will somewhat reduce the overall load on the arbitration committee by providing an alternate avenue for handling disputes with admins. Beyond that there is the question of how Arbcom would deal with a situation wherein an arbitrator who is an admin and relying on admin tools to arbitrate is desysopped hopefully this is not something that would occur but if it does it could lead to some minor complications.

24. Why did you not run for adminship before running for Arb. As an Arb you atleast need access to deleted material for sure. How will you manage it ?Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually answered this question above - I didn't run for adminship as I didn't need it to accomplish the tasks I like to do on the project. Should I be elected as arbitrator and should it become evident that I require admin tools to successfully perform the role I will seek an RfA quickly.

26. In this case request statement, you referred to the Israel Defense Forces as the IOF, which is presumably a shorthand pejorative for the "Israel Occupation Forces" according to our disambiguation page on the topic. Do you think that language was appropriate behavior in making statements to the committee you're hoping to serve on? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a single comment in a heated moment - I will, of course, endeavor to arbitrate fairly, impartially and guided by the rules and norms of Wikipedia.

28. In light of the above question, would you commit to recusing yourself from participating in cases relating to the ARBPIA topic area? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Unless, as I mentioned in the questions about recusals above, I was significantly involved in a discussion per the definition in the arbitrator regulations I cited. My having once expressed a personal opinion about an active military force is not, in my opinion, a hindrance on my ability to dispense my duties appropriately and according to the rules and norms of Wikipedia.

30. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of prelimary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think arbitrators should approach any given case with an open mind regarding remedies. As I mentioned in a prior answer I do think that ArbCom has been too dependent on ECR as a remedy - but this doesn't mean I'd never consider it if it were appropriate as a remedy. An arbitrator should, ultimately, mediate and resolve disputes. Our remedies must be tailored to the disputes we're trying to resolve.

32. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually agreed with quite a lot of what you had to say in your musings. In particular I do think there are serious structural problems with how Wikipedia manages dispute resolution. I do pay relatively close attention to WP:AN/I and to WP:ARBCOM pages (a side effect of my first area of focus in Wikipedia being China) and AN/I, in particular could do with significant restructuring, including more formal procedures for creating, responding to and resolving incidents. I think the main reasons why we don't fix it are strain on volunteertime and institutional inertia.

34. You have relatively little experience of the back end of Wikipedia compared to most other candidates. Do you have any other relevant experience of making difficult decisions or handling sensitive information? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite a bit actually. My career is as a project manager and I've worked in both the private and public sector, including with medical technology. As a result I have had to regularly handle a variety of highly confidential information. A past position in veterans affairs required a security clearance and I have a certification for handling HIPAA materials. Regarding difficult decisions, my work experience has included being in the position of making hiring decisions. Beyond my work history, I have engagedin a host of off-wiki volunteer activities that required me to handle sensitive or private information. For obvious reasons I can'telaborate much beyond what I have disclosed here. But, yes, I am quite comfortable keeping confidence and being responsiblefor difficult choices.

36. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is somewhere that arbitrators should tread very carefully. Frankly we can't expect editors to have no thoughts, feelings or moral / ethical presuppositions that will influence what they believe is appropriate for Wikipedia. Questions as to what makes a source unreliable, what constitutes mainstream or fringe views and what words like "neutral" should mean are open to interpretation and, for Wikipedia to remain collaborative, must continue to remain open to interpretation. In light of that no POV of an editor should be subject to discipline unless it becomes disruptive to the work of creating a collaborative encyclopedia. If editor behavior is disruptive then the level of politeness is, in all likelihood, irrelevant.

38. What have you done to prepare yourself to understand the arbitration committee's workload, and to manage your time to handle it? isaacl (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm quite good at handling large email loads and have significant prior volunteer experience on boards of directors. I have reviewed what the arbitration committee is supposed to handle and feel, based on my review of available data, that it is within my capacity.

40. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Whenever possible as much of an arbitration decision as possible should be transparent. If votes are held in camera there should be a compelling reason. Otherwise that information should be public.

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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.

Note from Daniel — I'm currently travelling overseas so replies may be slightly delayed, apologies in advance. Also, I'm going to keep responses deliberately short for two reasons; firstly I'm away from home so it's hard to sit down and punch out mini-essays. Secondly, given there's 12 candidates all with lots of questions and answers, information overload is a real risk for those reading answers. If any editor would like me to expand on any answer below, please feel free to flick me a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to elaborate. Cheers, Daniel.

2. Thank you for standing as a candidate. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Optimistic - longevity. We're still around! This project has amazing resilience. Reform - have seen things like administrator elections and recall get through recently, which are both (in my opinion) steps in the right direction. It also shows the community is able to continuously improve.
   Pessimistic - partisanship. Reflecting the real world, opposite viewpoints are becoming further apart, and the common ground for respectful and constructive discourse seems to be narrowing. Editor retention - very concerned that not enough is being done to protect content contributors in difficult areas from disruptive actors. Daniel (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Please identify a substantive decision of the committee that you disagreed with within the last 3 years, and explain why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   This is easy for me; the most dangerous set of FoF's I've seen was Scottywong. I said as much on the proposed decision talk page. Scotty was in the wrong with his initial conduct, absolutely, but dredging up evidence from 10-12 years ago to justify a decision was below the standards I expect from the Committee. Further, this finding of fact actually has a chilling effect on future participation in Arbitration proceedings and the presentation of evidence, which can't be considered a good thing (surely we want parties engaging, not avoiding, ArbCom proceedings?). Please also see Newyorkbrad and Anomie's comments on the PD talk page for further context. Daniel (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Interesting question. At this stage, no, unless there is an arbitration case about Sydney hailstorms or Australian football (soccer) clubs! More likely is I would need to recuse due to editor conflict rather than a topic area conflict, simply because I don't edit in contentious areas. To give a contemporaneous example, I'd likely have to recuse if this general dispute ended up at RfAR (again) given my close of the ANI omnibus discussion (associated user talk page discussion here). I offered some strident commentary post-close to those who objected to said close, about an issue fundamental to the ongoing dispute (ie. the standing of editors), and this would surely cause at least a perception of being conflicted and therefore recusal would be necessary. It is fair to say I would err on the side of recusing more than less, should I be elected, so as to protect the integrity of the Committee. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Simply put, I think cases need to be extraordinary to be conducted based predominantly or entirely off private evidence — whether that be extraordinary alleged behaviour, extraordinary divisiveness within the community, or extraordinary risk to the project for not taking action. This 'extraordinary' threshold would be higher than the standard threshold to accept a 'normal', public case. In short, the Committee really should have no choice but to take it, if we're taking a private case (as private evidence is something that should be resisted generally). To extend that principle further, everything possible should be made public, whether in full or summarised. I think for a private case, it should be voted on in public at every stage (acceptance at RfAR, proposed decision etc.). Finally, if the private evidence cannot be shared in a form close to completeness with the 'accused' (to use your term) to offer a response, in my opinion it shouldn't be allowed to be relied upon as justification for a decision. Natural justice is incredibly important to me, and I believe these statements reflect this position. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It took five questions to get asked about Administrator recall, which is three more than where my bet would have been on! Firstly, I support administrator recall as a concept and am proud of the community for getting both this and administrator elections over the line (see answer to Q2 and my comments here). That being said, I've been pretty strident in my commentary around making the recall process as 'fair' and 'humane' for administrators put through it, including challenging the length of time that a recall runs for and the ability for them to provide a structured response (back when the filer had a chance to make a statement at the top of the page). This is the same fairness and humanity-oriented approach I would take to being on ArbCom, and links to my answer to Q4 above.
    I'm sure many people disagree with my views on recall, either dislking the entire recall concept (which I support) or disliking the two proposed alterations (which I think the process needs to be improved), but I hope people can appreciate my views comes from a position of trying to optimise a new process and find the balance between process and people.
    None of this has answered your question though. In short — I don't know right now. Potentially issues may get kicked back to recall to deal with, although maybe they won't? Can being recalled/having a RRfA become a proposed remedy? The only thing I do think will happen with some level of confidence is that I expect that at least some ADMINCOND cases that would have ended up at ArbCom may not any more, as they will be short-circuited by ending up at recall instead. I look at very recent examples such as Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71 as being one that likely wouldn't end up at ArbCom in 2025 on this basis. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of preliminary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely not. They need to have an idea that they can apply some sort of remedy that will be effective based on the information presented at the filing at RfAr, otherwise there's no point accepting the case (eg. content disputes should be declined). But, in terms of actual specifics, if a case is accepted it is opened to explore all possible outcomes based on the evidence presented. Where the facts aren't in dispute, for example the recent desysopping of Marine 69-71, motions can provide an efficient solution to a problem that doesn't require the exploration of a whole case. But if you open a case to explore an issue, it should be done with an open mind, and comments to the contrary of this should be avoided by arbitrators at the acceptance stage with their votes to accept/decline (something that hasn't been done particularly well this year.) Daniel (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. Topical and somewhat urgent question: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I offered up an opinion very early in the piece of this issue, see my two comments here and here. I think this is a very dangerous game that WMF are playing, for two reasons — showing that the Foundation are willing to play ball with foreign governments with autocratic executives and/or judiciaries (rather than its previous general position of 'get lost', which has been long-term effective in places like Turkey etc.), but also for editor retention, engagement and trust in the WMF protecting them. I acknowledge this is hardly a revolutionary view to hold, based on the amount of support the open letter has received. Daniel (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your answer, Daniel. Yep, funny old thing this t'inter-webs lark, ain't it. Almost as if national laws are irrelevant. Until suddenly they're not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to take you on at "Wikipedians are fond of calling processes things they're not. For example, processes like AfD ... are called discussions and many Wikipedians go to great lengths not to call them votes. They are votes. We expect editors to provide a rationale for their vote (more so at AfD than RfA), but strength of argument rarely trumps numerical superiority" — but it won't be today, I've had a full day of travel. Will get to this over the weekend (Central American time). Daniel (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. What have you done to prepare yourself to understand the arbitration committee's workload, and to manage your time to handle it? isaacl (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Former clerk (a long time ago, I concede) so I am roughly aware of the workings of the Committee. As mentioned in my nomination statement, the sort of activity required for an Arbitrator to be effective suits my real-world situation perfectly. Actively edit 3-4 times a week at a minimum, travel a fair bit so can keep track of discussions and emails on my phone remotely. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. Thank you for your answer to Q3, and about erring "on the side of recusing more than less". How about for other arbitrators – if a request for another arbitrator's recusal was referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what would be your decision-making process? DanCherek (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would advocate for my threshold to be applied, but will respect if I am outvoted on that. After all, the Committee decides as a collective. It should be protecting the appearance of impartiality though, and recusing when borderline feels like an 'easy win' in that regards. There are (hopefully) 14 other active Arbitrators who can reach a decision without one who may cast a shadow over an end result. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The list of how members voted should always be posted - the current Functionaries appointments kerfuffle is showing that, I want to know who supported and who didn't (rather than having arbitrators come along individually to say). I don't understand what circumstances it would need to be hidden? If there are, it needs to meet the extraordinary threshold mentioned in Q3. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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 as a candidate and for your service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I am optimistic because I am seeing the passing of the torch to a third or forth generation of members of the committee. Theleekycauldron and Elli were not around for my RfA in 2011 or my first term on the committee in 2015, just like I was not around for Jdforrester's time on the committee. One of my fears has been, for a decade now, that Wikipedia will be remembered as the monument built by Baby Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials. It seems that Zoomers are starting to come into their own on the project. That make me hopeful that when I die, this project will go on.

   While I am hopeful about seeing the torch get passed and editor numbers stabilizing, I am also very worried about the solidification of roles on the project. The last time the committee appointed first-time functionaries as OSers was my generation. That means that outside of incoming arbs, the team has been pretty static for a decade now. There was a time when OS was part of a pipeline to the committee, that pipeline is now gone. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The FA process is probably the only thing. I was one of the core source reviewers for a few years. Outside of that, the areas I write about are calm and out of the way. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   A problem that the community can not solve should be explored by arbcom. As for safeguards, it depends on the exact evidence and if all of the parties know what is going on. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Recall should be able to handle the most cut and dry cases of Admin misconduct that tend to be handled by motion and a suspended case. If it works, we should have a chat with the community about ending LEVEL2 in 2026 since that power has been returned to the community. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of preliminary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Members should try to keep an open mind --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You want to fight over controversial thoughts. My favorite pastime. The problem is, I agree with you on most everything. The one that I will pick a fight with you about is "Editors (or small groups) who successfully research, write, and nominate a featured article should be allowed a by-line if they want it." I understand where you are coming from as a fellow FA writer, but all of my work has greatly benefited from edits from other people. While Marriage License is mine, it has the fingerprints of reviewers and friends. If I get credit they should get credit. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. It's often been suggested that Arbcom is the community's only 'official' bridge to the WMF. 30 days ago on Arbcom talk, you said: We are not EN Wikipedia's Foreign Office. This is a gross misuse of our political capital and time. I'm having difficulty contextualising that comment. Could you please clarify it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24. When a request for another arbitrator's recusal is referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what is your decision-making process? DanCherek (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard do you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28. There are currently ten active arbitrators out of a possible 15, and arbitrator activity appears to have been the cause of some matters before the Committee stalling – for example, motions in the recent ARBPIA amendment request were only recently enacted almost three months after the initial referral from AE, and it has been noted that an email sent to the Committee in the summer containing private evidence may have fell by the wayside as [an] enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into. As someone who has served on ArbCom, is there anything that you think the community, the committee, and/or the WMF could/should do in order to (either directly or indirectly) improve arbitrator retention, and/or prevent arbitrator burnout? ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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 as a candidate. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the question! RFA2024, and the new blood we've gotten from it, is what makes me the most optimistic. I've heard from lots of candidates and nominators who went through EfA that the trial run was a much more pleasant experience than RfA. And we got 11 admins out of it, which is almost as many as we got from RfA in all of 2023. WP:MONITOR also really helped clarify and solidify who's responsible for keeping RfA civil, and I think it's led to some really positive results. Overall, I'm incredibly pleased with the fact that the community is willing to try new things at all. Fossilization is one of the worrying trends I've noticed in the community, but RFA2024 is a strong indicator in the other direction.

   What makes me pessimistic is our fragile place in the media ecosystem right now. Our traffic is largely at the whims of Google, which is currently experimenting with magical, buzzwordy disinformation tools and has been known to use in-house tools to capriciously screw over rival companies that depend on Google Search. We're also seeing fearmongering and disinformation become successful strategies for populists around the world, and I think the war in Gaza this year has caused some damage to our reputation as a source. Case in point: I was one of the closers of the ADL RfC, and I saw a bunch of media organizations basically refuse to understand that the community isn't jam-packed with anti-semites. That had a real impact on the way my Jewish family and friends, including non- and anti-Zionists, view Wikipedia.

   Internal community matters tend to take up more of my time because there's something I can do about that, but the external things like Wikipedia's institutional standing are the things I worry about long-term, so that's my main pessimism. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Please identify a substantive decision of the committee that you disagreed with within the last 3 years, and explain why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the question! There are decisions I disagree with, but if you don't mind me hijacking your question a little bit, I want to talk about a Committee indecision that I strongly disagreed with. I was one of the referring administrators on this August ARCA thread on toxicity in the Israel–Palestine topic area. ArbCom moved to open a full case this week as a result of the thread, which I agree is necessary. But I'm disconcerted that it took three months from the thread being filed to even the beginning of a resolution, and now it's being delayed a few weeks more.

   Tensions in ARBPIA have obviously skyrocketed since the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. The dispute that caught my attention the most was tag-team edit-warring over the lead of Zionism, but it was a sprawling mess everywhere else, too. Several overlapping threads were filed at AE in mid-2024, with editors accusing each other of edit-warring, POV-pushing, and battleground behavior. Most of those threads trainwrecked because it's a complex case with a lot of policy gray areas, which is the kind of situation where ArbCom is supposed to step in. That took a few months, but in August, the AE admins finally referred a thread to the Committee and asked it to address the toxic, battleground behavior in the topic area.

   It looked for a while as if the Committee was going to pass a few motions and kick it back to AE. That would've been a mistake. I'm glad they're choosing to open a PIA5 case as well, but a few months is a long time in the heat of a conflict, and I don't know what the delay was about. Now it's going to be another few weeks before the case opens and a few more months before it closes, and looking from the outside, it feels like the Committee could be acting faster to address one of the more pressing problems for the project this year. I think the delay's had a real impact – the topic area is still a battleground, but now a lot of the evidence brought to ArbCom already is more stale. That'll make it more difficult for the Committee to agree to remedies that can help lower the temperature. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for asking, Red-tailed hawk! Inasmuch as I'm a regular content creator, I'm not active in any particularly contentious areas. I used to edit more about current events when I was starting out as an editor, but as I found my groove, I realized that pond wasn't my style. I do still technically edit in WP:ARBAP2 a fair amount, but my American politics editing is mostly stuff nobody feels strongly about, like old court cases and minor political figures. The sourcing is clearer and easier to follow, and even when I do write about contemporary-ish American politics, it's usually a low-key affair. Because I'm not really involved in the American politics editor group, I don't think I'd be likely to be INVOLVED if an AmPol case came up. Same goes for the other topic areas I write articles in.

   That said, I would be very likely to be involved if a DYK case came up. I've participated extensively in every corner of that project for a few years now, and pretty much everyone who keeps DYK working is a familiar face to me. So, DYK's not a contentious topic area, but if there's a DYK-wide dispute, I'd almost certainly be involved in it. For more narrow questions, or where DYK's not a central facet, it'd have to depend on who's a party and why. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the question, Carrite :) I don't think the secrecy of the evidence should determine whether ArbCom decides to take action or not. ArbCom should address cases based on the strength of the evidence and the underlying allegation.

   But I do think ArbCom should commit to being as transparent as possible, in a way it hasn't always. Episodes like Just Step Sideways' warning being concealed from the community and Bishonen not being told why they weren't granted COIVRT suggest that ArbCom is still more opaque as an institution than the community wants. And in JSS's case, when ArbCom actually released its private warning of JSS, it had to amend its public summary of said warning in its suspension motion. I don't think the Committee deliberately misconstrued its warning, of course, but it's still troubling that increased transparency led ArbCom to revise its actions. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the question, George Ho :) I think that pretty much depends on how effective recall becomes as an institution. If recall becomes an established first resort for pervasive admin conduct issues (i.e. ANI threads begin resolving with consensus to refer to recall), ArbCom might decide that its policy of letting the community exhaust its own measures first applies to recall in some way. Obviously, we're not there yet, and ArbCom is still pretty comfortable with its jurisdiction over admin conduct issues, having summarily desysopped an admin just last week. I think ArbCom is probably gonna retain its power over emergency and summary desysops, because recall is probably going to remain a fairly intensive process, which isn't well-suited to urgent cases. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of preliminary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the question, Tinynanorobots! I think it's kind of impossible to not have preliminary thoughts about preliminary evidence when, a lot of times, all the evidence for the case is already in front of you in some form. In a broader sense, everyone has heuristics for what information is most important when sorting through a case, it's a survival tool and even a mark of experience. At the same time, no, I don't think the Committee should use a case as a pretense to enact a specific remedy. If a full case is required, the parties should have the benefits of a full case – the opportunity to provide context, new evidence, and ultimately persuade arbitrators on the merits of their case. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. What have you done to prepare yourself to understand the arbitration committee's workload, and to manage your time to handle it? isaacl (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. Topical and somewhat urgent question: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. If a request for another arbitrator's recusal was referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what would be your decision-making process? DanCherek (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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 as a candidate. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   An encouraging trend I've seen recently has been a focus on putting topics popular among younger generations through content review processes. For example, just in October, Smash Hit, "Can't Catch Me Now", Ada Wong, and "Bad Blood" became featured articles. This makes me very hopeful for our future, because it helps us maintain our cultural relevance, and shows that that our editor base includes people of younger generations (like me) who are interested in such topics.

   A more discouraging theme I've noticed is the fragmentation of media landscapes. This takes many forms, from ANI's lawsuit against us, to Elon Musk's attacks on our impartiality, but the general trend is the same: a significant disconnect between what reliable sources report, and what many others publish and believe. This is not a problem we've caused, but one where we've been caught in the middle. If a large percentage of the population discounts Wikipedia as biased, that hurts our long-term prospects for gaining and retaining a diverse group of editors, and if people stop looking to Wikipedia for their simple queries, many will find their answers in far worse places. We'll do the best that we can do—evaluate sources and write in a neutral manner—and I hope that will be enough to help. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Please identify a substantive decision of the committee that you disagreed with within the last 3 years, and explain why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not particularly pleased with how the committee has handled situations involving private information. Being on the receiving end of private proceedings can be somewhat frustrating, so it is ArbCom's responsibility to be as up-front and transparent as possible with those involved, as well as the broader community, as is possible while still maintaining privacy. This is a difficult balance, and one that ArbCom needs to do a better job with. Just yesterday, the committee rejected a long-time admin's application to help with WP:COIVRT after the public consultation phase, and without providing useful feedback to them. While I can't say for sure if I would've voted the same way on that application, as I have not seen the private information, I would've insisted that we explain the committee's reasoning to the applicant in as much detail as possible.

   This is not the only example of this sort of thing happening, and it's the pattern of action that I'm concerned about. Other examples where the committee has handled this poorly include giving unclear assurances to CorbieVreccan (which then added unnecessary drama to a painful public case) and the failure to release the letter sent to JSS/Beeblebrox in 2021 until after his removal from the committee in 2023. Given that there is not really anyone else to appeal to, it's important we help people as much as we can while maintaining transparency with the community. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I find WP:INVOLVED to be a very important policy, as I explained at my RfA: even the appearance of an admin taking an action in an area where they are INVOLVED can feel incredibly frustrating and unfair. This is even more true regarding the Arbitration Committee (making its corollary recusal policy just as important), as its decisions are far harder to overturn compared to those of an individual administrator. There aren't any broad topic areas where I am so broadly involved to be unable to arbitrate neutrally, or where it would even appear for me to be unfairly involved. I do edit a decent amount about American politics and elections, so those would be the topic areas I'd be the most hesitant on arbitrating on, but that would be a case-by-case determination. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   As I mentioned in response to q2, private proceedings can be frustrating for those involved. They also deprive the community of the ability to provide useful input while a case is ongoing, and of clarity for why decisions have been made. I'd like to minimize fully-private cases, limiting them only to situations where no other type of case would be able to address important issues while maintaining safety for those involved. Hybrid cases such as Historical elections are an interesting approach and something I'd like the committee to work on improving as an alternative to private cases, as they allow for more community input. For all cases—private, public, or hybrid—the accused should be given as much access to the evidence against them as is possible without compromising the safety of others. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My hope is that once WP:RRFA becomes a well-accepted policy, ArbCom will no longer be responsible for most routine Level II desysops. For example, a case like Mzajac would ideally be handled with a recall petition. This does not mean that ArbCom should pass on addressing admin misconduct when it's brought to us, though, especially when part of a larger dispute that the community cannot effectively resolve. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of preliminary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Committee members should go into cases with an open mind. If there is an obvious remedy based on preliminary evidence, the case would be a good candidate for speedy resolution with a motion. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As POV-pushing is a conduct issue regardless of tone, both admins and ArbCom should feel empowered to take action to prevent it. I disagree with the premise of the essay that this is primarily ArbCom's responsibility; arbitration is for matters the community can't handle, not the other way around, and on-wiki behavior is within the community's purview. That said, in practice the community often struggles to deal with civil POV pushers, necessitating action on the part of ArbCom.

    Many, but not all, of the examples listed appear to be contentious topics, and uninvolved admins can and should make effective use of the CTOP tools that ArbCom has made available in these topic areas. I'm not aware of the extent of the issues in all of these topic areas, but I'm certainly open to designating more areas as contentious topics if necessary to allow admins to effectively crack down on POV pushing.

    When enforcement with the CTOP tools by admins is unsuccessful at stopping disruption in these topic areas (perhaps due to someone's behavior persistently falling just short of what admins are willing to sanction for), that's when ArbCom should step in with a case, which could result in topic- and/or site-bans. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. What have you done to prepare yourself to understand the arbitration committee's workload, and to manage your time to handle it? isaacl (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've talked to many arbitrators, both current and former, to get a good understanding of the time obligations involved with ArbCom, and the type of tasks that use significant arbitrator-time. As I spend many hours every week editing Wikipedia, I'm confident that I can redirect a sufficient amount of that time to arbitration work. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've outlined above, I value transparency very strongly. Given this, I would almost always support releasing the vote breakdown when private decisions are posted publicly. It may make sense to avoid this when dealing with someone who has made credible threats of violence, to avoid giving them specific names to target. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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 as a candidate. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't mean to dodge your question but I don't think I feel either optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the project. I do have "concerns" about factors that I think could impact the project.

   • I'm concerned about the use of AI by our newer editors and the randomness of when and how it is detected. I'm not sure how much AI has been discussed at AFC but I think reviewers need the appropriate tools to detect when a draft is machine generated. I'm ambivalent on the use of AI on the project, I can see how tempting it would be to editors who are not proficient in English but the writing itself is bland, almost always unsourced and subpar.
   • I'm concerned about Administrator elections. I think it is great that we have 11 new admins who have the support of the community but, with over 30 candidates to review and consider, I don't see how we could have wide-spread and quality participation in the entire process. There were just an unexpectedly high number of candidates. And I'm concerned that candidates who didn't "win" in this election will not consider having an RFA in the future. They should see this election as a trial run. I think this shouldn't be a "one and done" experiment, it should be assessed and reviewed over the next 5 years. The page states The community will discuss whether and how to proceed with administrator elections. but it's too soon to see how this discussion will happen.
   • I'm concerned about WMF's relationship with Wikipedia, especially that concern which is conveyed in Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. This letter already has almost 800 signatures in just 5 days and I expect that number to grow. I think the disclosure of editor identities is something that needs to be called out before it becomes an ordinary event instead of an extraordinary one.
   • I'm concerned about editor burnout. As a regular closer at AFDs, I'm saddened to see the exodus of some of our regular participants and I know that this is not the only area of the project to see declines. The participation at TFDs and CFDs discussion is so low that sometimes "consensus" becomes the nominator's statement alone. While I applaud the few very knowledgeable editors who keep these forums going, low participation results in consensus that are less reflective of the community at large.
   • I'm concerned that our more-technically minded editors who create the tools we use to help us do our work do not always feel supported by WMF and their engineers and developers. It seems that every time a bot gets turned off, it causes a bit of anxiety over what will take care of these routine tasks for us but luckily we have some amazing editors who step up and try to build replacements, often in very little time.
   • If you look at my Edit Count breakdown, what will stand out is the number of edits I have in User talk space. Many of these edits are CSD notifications but a large share are Welcome messages and Invitations to the Teahouse. I'm heartened that I could probably do this activity full-time as we continue to grow as a community and new editors join the project. The puzzle is how to turn casual editors into experienced ones and that's impossible to predict.

   These are some of my concerns I have when I think about the future of the project and I'm sure over the next two weeks, I'll think of others, hopefully a few more positives to balance out the "concerns".

4. Please identify a substantive decision of the committee that you disagreed with within the last 3 years, and explain why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Looking over cases from 2022-2024, I see two cases where I might have had a different opinion than the consensus of the committee. In the Small Cat case in the Proposed decision, there was a Proposed Remedy #2.3.4 called "BrownHairedGirl conduct restriction". This remedy had 4 arbitrators in support while 7 were opposed. While acknowledging that the evidence collected against BHG was damning, there were longstanding civility issues and BHG had previously violated editing restrictions, I probably would have argued in favor of this remedy or, at least, tried to conceive of an alternative sanction to an indefinite block. I know that my argument probably wouldn't have resulted in a different outcome but I wish there were more possible intermediate-level sanctions that could be considered between "No sanction" and an "Indefinite block". My opinion is based on BHG being an unofficial mentor to me when I first started editing in 2013 and my admiration for her contributions to the project and, because of this, I likely would have recused myself from participating in this case deliberation. But that's one instance where I disagreed with the committee consensus and that was the question you asked.

   Secondly, in the Conduct in Deletion-related editing case, remedy 4.3.7 a Request for Comment was proposed. An RFC was even set up at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale and the talk page shows that discussions concerning it went on from November 2022 to May 2023. But, in February 2023, the committee rescinded this remedy by Motion. This was due in part from a lack of participation. I am not privy to the committee's discussion about this Motion but I think I would have tried to brainstorm ways to get the community involved here because there are still ongoing problems at AFD with mass nominations and low quality participation that have only worsened as participation in AFD discussions has decreased. I know from my own AFD participation and discussion with other closers and AFD regulars, that this decrease in editor participation, except for "hot topic" article discussions, has been noted since the summer of 2023. This is a discussion that still has to happen and I think this RFC was a lost opportunity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   This is the most challenging question posed to me so far. First, I'm not sure what the standard should be because I don't know what the current standard is right now, so it's hard to evaluate what aspects I would propose changes to or accept as appropriate. The existing standard could be more transparent to the community, I think, without any harm to any individual. But it very might be that ARBCOM decides whether to take a case based on private evidence on a case-by-case basis and has no "standard" to judge this which I find disconcerting.

   I think it should be possible to have a case based on private evidence especially when it involves harrassment but it does pose a thorny question on how to divulge information to the accused in order to allow them to defend themselves. I think I'm more concerned about the fairness of this process than how much of the prodeedings to reveal to the community. The Arbitration Committee often keeps information from the community, much to their frustration, so that is nothing new. But the accused needs to know what the accusations are in order to offer their own explanations or defend themselves. I don't see how it is possible to provide details about misconduct allegations without it being obvious about the identity of the filer so perhaps the accused could be asked to keep such information private which would require their agreement and cooperation. I don't think we can take that reaction as a given.

   So, to shorten what could be a long, exploration into the nature of privacy and arbitration deliberations (I can be very wordy), I'd have to say that I don't have an easy-to-sum up solution to the problem that you are validly pointing out and, if elected, I'd need to see how these cases are handled before advocating changes. But you have put your finger on a sensitive question which needs to be spelled out better by the committee to the community and I hope you will continue to pursue transparency here no matter who is elected.

8. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   While I think a recall process for administrators is overdue, I think the current system needs to be refined, with the comment and voting portion shortened to the length of a standard RFA. 30 days is too long to keep an administrator who is the subject waiting to see how the recall will be concluded. If it takes a week to determine if an editor is suitable to be an admin, it should take a similar amount of time to determine whether they no longer have the trust of the community or, at least, of the editors who choose to take part in the process.

   I think a functional recall process will lower the number of cases that the committee is asked to review about administrator fitness. I think that arbitration cases should still be an option, especially if there are large amounts of evidence that need to be submitted and reviewed. The recall process, as it exists, is less adaptable to hear evidence from multiple editors and even if changes are made to it, it would not be a suitable avenue for that process to occur. So, I think Administrator recall will reduce the number of cases focused on administrator conduct that the committee is asked to consider but the arbitration option should continue to exist for more complicated cases that might involve multiple parties.

10. Being on the committee requires a lot of time and presence and an enormous dedication. This would mean a radical restructuring and change in focus of the huge amount of essential admin work you already do. If you are accorded a seat, how do you plan to reorganise your time? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You're absolutely right, Kudpung and thinking about this was part of the reason that I didn't submit my candidate application sooner in the process. I'm at a stage in my life where I have a fair amount of free time and I have spent much of it with my daily admin editing routine of tasks. And I find a lot of satisfaction from the work that I do right now.

    Even though I was an arbitration clerk for two years, the pace and workload of the committee members on a daily basis is unclear to me and I think it's also unknown to everyone who hasn't served on the committee. So, it's hard to know how much it will impact the editing work I do on the project. I'll obviously have to cut back but I'm less concerned about this change than I was a few months ago. In the spring and summer of this year, we had very few admin closers for AFDs but recently we've had a number of new and returning administrators coming to help out with AFDs so I have stepped away from closing so many of those. We also have more admins helping out with reviewing PRODs so I'm not worried about that area. My other main activity is reviewing stale drafts, CSD G13s, which takes a fair amount of time every day but I think it would be fairly easy to explain this process to one of our newly minted admins. So, while it will be hard for me, personally, to give up some of my daily habits, I have confidence that we have able and competent admins who can pick up the slack. I also think it is good for the project to not have any editor or admin who has "jurisdiction" over any one area of the encyclopedia. It's healthier for the project and its editors to have redundancy and have multiple administrators who can and do handle any particular task. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your answer Liz. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only pick one? Several musings brought up reactions from me, both positive and negative but we can leave those to any follow-up questions.

    The one I'll select to reply to here is in the "On articles, deletion, etc" section and that is I believe Wikipedia would better serve its readers better with a smaller number of more detailed articles with a broader scope than with many thousands of short articles on (for example) individual athletes or species. While I understand your point, Wikipedia is dependent on our content creators who are volunteers and they have their own subjects of interest and knowledge. So, we are richer in areas where we have editors who have expertise in an area whether that is railway lines, German tanks, species of toads in South America, songs of the 1960s or turn of the 20th century vaudeville performers in the UK. Who becomes a content creator and what their focus is lies beyond anyone's control.

    For example, I think that the subject area of sociology is really substandard on Wikipedia. We don't have enough articles and many of our articles introducing basic concepts are not well-developed because it is more challenging to write a well-referenced article with a "broader scope" that is not overly long about an abstract concept than it is to write an article about characters in a popular TV series. But until we get more experienced and capable editors who want to take on this area as a project to work on, it will remain in a poor state. Our editors and their areas of interest is not equally distributed or proportional to the importance of the topic. So, while it might be an interesting thought experiment to consider the Wikipedia we think should exist, we are lucky to have well-referenced and well-written articles that we do have whether or not they are on "important" subjects or on topics that have a narrow interest. The composition of Wikipedia reflects the interests of our editors over 23 years, for better or worse.

    An aside:I wouldn't have pegged you as a Swiftie! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the essay you link to, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, is a pointed critique of how ARBCOM has neglected to address this POV pushing behavior. I agree with some of the points it makes. But, generally, the Arbitration Committee responds to case requests that are brought to its attention or evidence that is sent to them through email, it doesn't go out and investigate matters without an initiative like these and these are complaints that have typically gone through prior attempted levels of resolution before arriving at arbitration. But I think POV pushing is and has been an element of discussion when brought up in formal arbitration cases, especially through the evidence phase of a case. But the committee isn't a police force than can monitor noticeboards and lay down sanctions when complaints are brought to ANI or NPOVN. POV pushing is definitely one form of misconduct that can be considered in arbitration proceedings but its sphere of influence on the project is intentionally restricted to the realm of arbitration cases and private communication. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Pinguinn, thank you for your question but I think I answered this already in Question #2. If you have a different but follow-up question you'd like to ask about a specific case, I'd be happy to address it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have decided that since you phrased the question differently than Question #2, I should supply an answer to it. I think if I was an arbitrator years ago, I would have handled Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS differently than the final consensus of the committee. This case was hampered by the lack of participation of RexxS in this case so while there was an opportunity to hear his defense against the valid accusations that were made, unfortunately, he didn't take advantage of it. But I don't think I would have cast a vote to desysop him.

    The evidence was unquestionably solid that there were instances of incivility and misuse of tools (or the threat of their misuse) but I believe that RexxS had also been a responsible administrator in general. I think an editing restriction or topic ban from the areas of COVID19 or, even broader, MEDRS for a year and an admonishment might have been more appropriate since these were the general subject areas where many of the problems occurred. I don't think any administrator gets a pass from ADMINACCT and some of his conduct was unacceptable. It's just unfortunate that he chose to withdraw from the proceedings and not be responsive to complaints because, ultimately, I think that influenced the committee's decision to desysop him. But I would have supported an alternative sanction in this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, isaacl, this is a difficult quesion to answer given that I've never been on the committee before so I don't have a view behind the scenes to see how large the workload is or how it is currently managed. I think the arbitration clerks are essential to the committee functioning efficiently so a concern of mine would always be to have a full roster of active clerks able to assist the committee with their work.

    As I said in my candidate statement, when I was a clerk and now working as an administrator, I frequently heard complaints from editors, active and blocked ones, who stated that they written email messages and sometimes follow-up emails but stated that they hadn't received any response or, at least, not a timely one, from the committee. I think that while arbitration cases get the lion's share of attention from editors, correspondence via email remains largely hidden but can be a sizeable element of the committee's workload and if I could help out with one aspect of their workload, it would be to ensure that editors sending messages received a timely receipt that, yes, their message had been received and an estimated time when they could expect a fuller response from the committe. I understand that this estimate may be difficult to approximate but I don't think editors writing to the committee should be faced with silence or months of waiting to hear back. Again, I don't know what email system is in place right now but I'd like to see some form of structured email response or maybe even have one arbitrator designated the Traffic Manager to ensure that no email requests get lost or forgotten in the committee's Inbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your response within the bounds of your experience. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. If a request for another arbitrator's recusal was referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what would be your decision-making process? DanCherek (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume these discussions, should they happen, are done privately, off-wiki, through email until some sort of consensus is reached. If there is a general agreement that recusal is appropriate and the arbitrator disagrees, I assume that these decisions are handled through persuasion, not any kind of committee enforcement. At least, in the past when I have seen clerks and arbitrators recuse themselves, it has appeared to me to be voluntary. I'm not aware of a case where the committee demanded an arbitrator recuse themselves but, as you know, much of the committee's business is done privately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I support transparency unless there is a pressing need for privacy to be honored. An example I can think of is during the Gamergate incident back in 2014-2015, I was doxxed for comments I made on social media and I think if a case or request for a motion with a similar highly public profile is taken, the committee might chose just revealing outcomes in order to avoid harrassment of committee members. But I think those occasions are rare and, in general, transparency should be the road taken most often. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24. I apologize for overestimating your knowledge of the arbitration committee workload based on your clerk experience. I'll ask the question I asked other candidates who were not arbitrators previously (though I appreciate your answer to question 5 covers part of it): What have you done to prepare yourself to understand the arbitration committee's workload, and to manage your time to handle it? isaacl (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    isaacl, the work of a clerk is, if I remember rightly, about setting up case pages once a case request has been accepted by the committee and posting a lot of notifications on the user talk pages of involved parties during the course of an open case and then, after it closes. We follow instructions from the committee members and I remember there were a ton of different templates we used to set up cases and post notices. We were sometimes asked to monitor case talk pages in case there were inappropriate comments, check to make sure that statements stayed within the word limits and we also reviewed new candidates who wanted to become clerks. But normally, communication went one-way, the committee told us what was needed and we carried out their requests. So, there was no peak into what the committee's deliberations and correspondence were composed of.

    That's just background to situate my understanding of the committee from the stance of a former arbitration clerk. I haven't done a great deal to prepare for this change of status if I am elected. To answer some questions on this page, I reviewed some recent cases handled by the committee but when I was a clerk, I spent a fair amount of time reading up on older cases so I think I have a good foundational knowledge of the committee's history. The workload of the committee has changed a lot since when it was first established and fewer cases are accepted than in the past. As for the second part of your question, I'll refer you to the question asked by Kudpung, #5 where I go into the time management question and how my editing routine will change if I am put on the committee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26. I have always respected the work you do, especially in coordination with DumbBOT. You have very high activity/edits/deletions. Do you think joining ArbCom might impact/decrease your usual activity? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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 as a candidate and for your service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I think one of my largest successes as an Arbitrator was as a drafter for WP:HJP; we had an unusual case structure with a huge body of evidence to work through, and the three drafters communicated really well to make sure things went as smoothly as they could. With all of the recent talk about (in)activity of Arbitrators, I would note that I have been officially inactive for approximately three weeks across my tenure, and only unofficially for a little longer than that.

   As far as failures go, I think the largest one was around the COI management case; I got caught up in the drama, made some mistakes, and did not really act in the most professional manner.

4. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I am optimistic to still see new accounts joining the project; while Wikipedia does tend to have a high turnover, seeing new editors making efforts to write drafts or even just make grammatical corrections means that we have not stopped being relevant in society.

   On the pessimistic side, I feel like we have seen an explosion of intractable disagreements; there have always been disputes on Wikipedia but I feel like the number of highly-contentious RFCs and drama spreading across multiple pages has increased significantly in the last five years or so. This is not necessarily something unique to Wikipedia — as it really is more of a societal/global issue — but it is in stark contrast to my optimistic point, especially when new(er) users get harassed or otherwise harangued by experienced editors who sometimes act insulted that someone would have an opposing view. It makes me somewhat concerned that our rules and policies will start being ignored or removed simply because a vocal minority manages to push everyone else in that direction.

6. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management, there were 2 negative FoF about you. You were one of the four parties to the case, but claimed that "as I was recused from the get-go I was not following the case" (here) and elsewhere even (as an excuse for why you used your tools while involved) "I am not involved in that case" about a case to which you were a party! Why should we trust someone to be a good Arb who shows such disdain for or complete ignorance of ArbCom cases? Fram (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   As I mentioned in the answer to Q1: I made some mistakes and did not act in the most professional manner when it came to the COI case and the related events. I admitted as much, attempted to clarify some of the related editing around the recusal, and the Committee found that acceptable for moving forward. I know I cannot win back the trust of anyone who feels as you do regarding this case, but I would hope that for those who are on the fence they will see my actions following the initial incidents have indicated that I learned from this situation and will do my utmost to avoid it in the future.

   Doesn't really answer the questions posed, "Why should we trust someone to be a good Arb who shows such disdain for or complete ignorance of ArbCom cases?" I am not talking here about your actions before the case opened, but about your actions (and lack of them) during the case, and your bewildering comments that you claimed not to be involved in a case where you were a party and so on. Fram (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I do not believe I showed disdain or ignorance of an ArbCom case, as I explained in the Workshop. If that means I cannot answer your question, then so be it. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Then how would you describe someone who is a party to a case but can't be bother to follow it and even claims they aren't involved in it? What, if not ignorance or disdain, is your explanation for this? Fram (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   It is not that I "[couldn't] be bothered to follow it", it was that I knew that my part in the case was small, and that I did not need to watch every piece of evidence coming in the case that I would need to rebut or explain something. As I have said multiple times now in multiple locations, my "I am not involved" was a poorly-worded reply indicating that I was not involved as a member of ArbCom in the matter. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I cannot think of anything specific off-hand, though some advice I was given as a new arb was to not become involved with disputes regarding administrators (e.g. conduct issues at AN) because those issues might make their way to ARC and if I were involved in the lower levels it would be much more difficult for me to remain neutral overseeing a case. For similar reasons I do not edit in CTOP areas or work AE, though for the latter it is also that I am not really interested in editing those subjects.

10. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I know this is a bit of a cop-out answer, but the standard should be the same for a case request based on public evidence: we should be reasonably convinced that the preliminary statement is enough to demonstrate that a case is needed. We have handled a number of cases with private evidence involved in them in the near past; I was going to list them but the historical elections case has a motion stating basically what my answer would be: if private evidence is collected, the editor(s) to which that evidence relates will be informed of what it is so they can have a chance to explain or otherwise reply to that evidence.

12. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    On a day-to-day basis, I do not think it will affect us much. We have seen a number of cases in the last few years of admins making mistakes and (with very small exception) not owning up to them, and there have been a couple of cases which were so big and mighty that we almost had to take them (I am thinking specifically of this case but there are others as well). Administrator recall will likely help out with some of the former instances, as disengaged admins will do so whether at recall or before arbcom, but since those cases are usually closed by motion or end up as suspended anyway it is not necessarily going to save us a ton of time or deliberation since we were not going to be expending that much in the first place. Recall is also not a fast process, so if someone must be desysopped we will likely be dealing with it anyway.

14. Your comment above: ...cases in the last few years of admins making mistakes and (with very small exception) not owning up to them... reminds me of a proverb attributed to Seneca: errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum. Considering that such mistakes may or may not be evidence of an egregious pattern, when hearing a case do you believe that before pronouncing its verdict, sentence, or acquittal, the committee should examine the evidence more deeply, or simply as in the practice of RfC, evaluate, report, and action the consensus of the opinion of those requesting/demanding sanctions balanced with those providing arguments for mitigation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Committee should always look at the evidence deeply; it does not (or should not) particularly matter how many people advocate for one position or another when it comes to sanctions, we need to look at the evidence and see where it leads us in relation to existing policies, guidelines, and norms. For a case such as WP:HJP, we even set up a separate summary page for evidence, not only to make this evaluation easier for the non-drafting arbs but also to further remove the evidence from the people giving it.

16. Why was momentary admin candidate Saqib BLOCKED? {{ArbComBlock}} only answers the question "who?", not "why?" – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately I am not free to discuss the matter or provide information on what prompted this block.

18. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Original "silly" answer in Special:Diff/1257540801

    In a similar vein, we should delete articles about people who are not public figures if they ask for it. I agree with this sentiment, but I know why people do not agree with it - once someone has "attained notability" then the attitude on Wikipedia is that they will always be notable. Despite WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E, even those with a mere 15 seconds of fame find themselves indelibly printed on the electronic ink of this encyclopedia (my personal bugbear on the subject, which is not a BLP, is Unicorn Frappuccino, which I have been trying to redirect pretty much since it was written). As you say elsewhere in your musings, we really do need to tighten down our notability criteria for living people, but we should also respect that if someone just barely surpasses 1E and wants to be removed, we should weight that consideration much more heavily than is done at the current time.

20. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As stated in the essay, it is hard for ArbCom to address these issues; on the surface they are not necessarily conduct issues but instead long-running content issues where people get tired of arguing the same points and eventually giving up (for whatever reason). I think that is where we come in, though; we are one of the few bodies that has a structure wherein we can look at mountains of evidence, collate them, and determine whether long-term sealioning is happening.

22. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We should have been more forceful and not accepted the request to hold this case publicly; we already had all of the information around the incident, the damage was done, and for once the case really did feel like a foregone conclusion with little chance of any different outcome than the one we arrived at. The case provided nothing except a forum for grievances to be aired during the Evidence phase.

24. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I plan to keep throwing things at the wall and see what sticks. We have tried a number of things over the last four years to keep on top of our workload; some of them have worked (e.g. no longer routinely hearing CU blocks) while others have not done as well (e.g. finding a platform where we can triage and track incoming emails). One of the best (and worst) things has been having a single Arb who is really good at keeping on top of a specific task; for example, Maxim and Izno were really good at keeping our list of unblock requests updated, but when their terms ended we did not have anyone that stepped into that role. We continue to have discussions internally (and occasionally externally) to keep thinking of ideas of how best to track our workload, and I will probably be a part of any future discussions on the matter.

    As a followup, based on your experiences with the various roles arbitrators have played, what plans do you have to garner the beneficial aspects? isaacl (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just me spitballing, but I almost feel like we need to have "official" positions within ArbCom (voluntarily taken up, of course). For example, someone should respond to incoming mail (e.g. "we have received this" usually), someone should be tracking status on ArbWiki, someone should be making sure business that has been delayed or forgotten gets bumped back to the top. If each position has 1-2 arbs working it, we won't be assuming that just because Arb X responded to the last fifteen emails, they will respond to the sixteenth. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26. When a request for another arbitrator's recusal is referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what is your decision-making process? DanCherek (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If we are formally asked to consider a recusal, our decision is usually based on past interactions of that arbitrator with the subject, be it an editor or a topic. Arbitrators do not exist in a vacuum but at the same time recusal is as much about being seen to do the right thing as it is actually doing it. That being said, as I have said (on-list) during such discussions, requests to recuse need to include a substantial reason why the normal day-to-day editing of the arbitrator in question are in conflict with the case.

28. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard do you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For me, it largely comes down to why we are posting the decision. If the rationale and the ruling is fairly clear, it is likely people will know how the voting broke down. For something that may be contentious or otherwise confusing, we may release the tally, either as an implied statement of "the committee all agreed on this" or "the Committee was divided but this is our final decision". One reason not to post would be for things like functionary appointments; it largely does not matter if a person is appointed with 71% or 100%, they are still a functionary and are held to the same standards, but posting the votes might make people think that an editor with the first value was somehow less capable.

30. There are currently ten active arbitrators out of a possible 15, and arbitrator activity appears to have been the cause of some matters before the Committee stalling – for example, motions in the recent ARBPIA amendment request were only recently enacted almost three months after the initial referral from AE, and it has been noted that an email sent to the Committee in the summer containing private evidence may have fell by the wayside as [an] enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into. As someone who has served on ArbCom, is there anything that you think the community, the committee, and/or the WMF could/should do in order to (either directly or indirectly) improve arbitrator retention, and/or prevent arbitrator burnout? ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See my answers in #12 for more, but I think it is because for a long time we had one or two arbs who tracked ongoing matters, and I think no one really realised exactly how much that affected our workflow, not just the new arbs, and their absence meant that things slowly slipped. I will do my best to make sure this year does not repeat itself as far as productivity goes.

Add your questions at the bottom of the page 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. I think many would say the activity levels of the committee this year has been a concern. Your last 250 edits go back to February 2023. Are you sure that you can commit to the activity levels necessary to make ArbCom productive? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes. As I explained in my statement, I've had difficulty seeing; vision during daylight hours has been just awful. I've had two operations over the summer and need one more; it's been painful and I don't think the pain is over just yet, but I'm much improved. I've also been able to keep up with the functionary activity requirements, though my CU activity hasn't been as high because that takes a different kind of attention to detail than OS does. I'll get back to regular CU work in a couple of weeks. Katie^talk 00:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Thank you for standing as a candidate and for your past service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a former member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, I kept you in line, didn't I? ;-) (not sure if that's a success or a failure tbh) I think my favorite successes were ban appeals that needed the attention of an experienced CU. Sometimes we get things wrong, and the good-faith editors who get caught up in that need serious help. I'm glad I was there and able to assist in a few cases. Failures are legion, but the worst for me was the Fram ban, because I think we (and previous committees) could have intervened sooner on multiple occasions on multiple fronts, and that's all I'll say about that. Katie^talk 00:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm optimistic because the WMF is on sound financial ground, the servers are going to keep running for the foreseeable future (y'all, you do not want to know how bad it was 15 years ago), and we've got lots of new editors and admins to keep on keepin' on, so to speak. It's encouraging to see the new admin elections process and I'm eager to see how it works out. I'm worried, though, that while the smaller projects under the WMF umbrella are important, attention to enwiki's needs isn't always paid to the extent I feel it should be. They're not ignoring us but the shift to the affiliate structure is worrisome to me. And while I have not (yet) signed the petition to the WMF over the issue in India, I share the concerns of those who have signed, and I fear that the WMF is going to come under more pressure from more governments and outside entities who want more control and less freedom. Katie^talk 00:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I did recuse from the process which ultimately ended with Bbb23 losing his CU bit, and I did that for personal reasons. Other than that, I can't think of anything going forward that I'd recuse from. If I missed something that I recused from in my first stint on the committee, please jog my memory. Katie^talk 17:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Up there where Kevin asked about failures? This is one of them. IIRC, we wanted to outline a procedure for private evidence in 2020 but didn't for whatever reason – probably it got buried under the deluge of stuff that comes in unexpectedly. I wish we had. It's a difficult question you've asked, because everybody has rights in a case. On one hand we need to protect the privacy of someone who genuinely feels they need it, and on the other hand we don't want to have things disappear into a star chamber-like process.

    So let's say, off the top of my very simplistic head here, that we've got a dispute between Editor A, who wants a private case, and Editor B. In my mind, we start with reviewing the private evidence of Editor A, discussing it, and as a body come to an agreement that a private case is or is not warranted. If it's rejected, Editor A has to be allowed the choice of backing out or taking it the normal route to file. If it's accepted as a private case, then Editor B has to be allowed to see that evidence. How can Editor B pull in diffs and support from Editors C and D – how do we allow C and D to be approached? Does Arbcom do it? Does B do it? And how do we get all these people to agree to confidentiality? Do we get a simple agreement? Do we have them sign the ANPDP and put it under that umbrella? Do we have to bake it into the ToU or the UCoC, something like 'if you're a party to a private case and you disclose private evidence, it's a one-way ticket to Indef Block Land'?

    Now, having said all that, I don't know what the current procedures are since I left the group at the end of 2021. That's all behind the curtain to me now, so I don't want to throw the current arbs under my magic privacy bus. Like I said, it's hard, but I think answering these questions is a place to start. Katie^talk 20:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's too soon to tell. Level I and II procedures remain in place, so there's no change there at the moment. Whether the community or the committee decide to make RRFA the sole method of admin recall remains to be seen. I think it's good to have two routes for editors troubled by admin conduct, because we've seen in the past that it can be difficult to get a desysop case through when that sanction is warranted, and sometimes a case can result in a desysop when many community members feel that punishment is too harsh. OTOH, RRFA could – not saying it will, definitely not saying it should, but could – turn into an example of a joke some people make about grand juries here in the United States, which is that even a semi-zealous prosecutor can convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. We've seen repeatedly at RFA that once the snowball starts rolling, it can be hard to stop, and 25 signatures isn't exactly a big chunk of the editor base. I hate to say we'll have to wait and see, but I think this election is a little too soon after the policy went into effect to answer the question with any clarity. Next year we should know a lot more. Katie^talk 00:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. In your answer to Q6 above you said: ...we've seen in the past that it can be difficult to get a desysop case through when that sanction is warranted, and sometimes a case can result in a desysop when many community members feel that punishment is too harsh. It's been quipped many times that Arbcom is 'judge, jury, and executioner'; when hearing a case do you believe that before pronouncing its verdict, sentence, or acquittal, the committee should examine the evidence more deeply, or simply as in the practice of RfC, evaluate, report, and action the consensus of the opinion of those requesting/demanding sanctions balanced with those providing arguments for mitigation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, we have to examine the evidence. Portals is an example. I was a drafter on that, and I went into it having read the opening statements and the back-and-forth at /Evidence nearly sure that we were going to lose two admins and some people were going to get blocked. (Don't misunderstand me – I didn't prejudge it, it was just the feeling I had at the beginning.) It turned out to be as one-sided as anything I've seen on this site. On occasion, things are not as they seem. Everybody brings their own biases and relationships, and I feel it's Arbcom's job to wade in and figure out what actually happened. Katie^talk 15:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your stance on bylines for featured articles is a nonstarter for me, and I apologize in advance for my tone. I do not like ownership at all, period, full stop. And that's what you're suggesting. This is not a newspaper and we are not journalists who work on a piece alone or with one or two other people. If we want a collaborative project, the way to get it isn't by slapping someone's name onto an FA like it's some kind of prize they've won. And let's argue about who gets the byline, by all means, because there's a shortage of things to argue about on this site. Do you need a certain number of edits to the page in order to get a byline? Who gets included in the byline if it's one of your 'small groups'? Who gets to make substantial edits to an FA with a byline, because those edits will alter the work of the byline holder? Taking credit for one's work is human nature, but I'm not here for credit, and by giving that credit you automatically put those like me into a 'lesser than' category. I'm all for the FA and GA topicons if people want to use them, but I don't want to be asked why my byline isn't on an article. If that makes me an outlier, so be it. Katie^talk 01:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That essay was created in 2008, and though it's been expanded and revised, and though the problem definitely still exists, I think the creation of discretionary sanctions and now contentious topics has helped somewhat. The admin toolset is a little more robust to help with these editors. It's by no means perfect, but I feel that Arbcom's role is to enable admins here. Katie^talk 12:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said above, I think the Fram issue should have been handled differently, and I've said all I have to say about it. Katie^talk 12:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't my first rodeo, so to speak, so I have a clear knowledge of what the workload is like. It's a largely reactive, not proactive, system, and you don't know what's coming your way. If there's one thing I'd like to see, and I've said this to the list before, it's some kind of CMS to keep email requests and other tasks from falling through the cracks. Katie^talk 19:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a followup, do you have any plans to work towards having a content management system deployed? As I recall, once upon a time something along those lines had been planned, but never got put in place. isaacl (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a discussion right now on the clerks list about the topic but it's in its first stages, the 'we really need to do something, here's what I think, what do you think' part. And it's really up to the WMF to pay for, so we can push (and I will, again) but it probably won't happen soon. Katie^talk 20:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24. Topical and somewhat urgent question: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks.

    As I said above, I share the concerns, because authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide; I hope the letter has the desired effect. As for the blackout, if it gains consensus, I'm fine with it, though I think it's a largely symbolic gesture that won't have a lot of real effect other than press coverage, which is what the Indian court is upset about in the first place. I have to be careful, so I'm going to leave it there. But I'm supportive. Katie^talk 20:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your answer, Katie. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26. If a request for another arbitrator's recusal was referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what would be your decision-making process?

    It would probably be some parallel to determining if I think an admin is involved. I don't want to leave you hanging, but it didn't come up during my first stint on the committee and it's not something I've considered in depth. I will say that, with one exception, each of the arbs I've served with are people of integrity, and absent evidence to the contrary, I would most likely believe them if they said they could participate in a case impartially. Katie^talk 22:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28. When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think motions regarding user conduct should probably have the breakdown published, or votes where there's more than minor deviation from all support or all oppose. The votes for CU/OS appointments need to stay private. In my experience, unless there's some underlying issue where we shouldn't publish it (for legal or privacy reasons, for example), if someone asks, we should probably tell them. Katie^talk 22:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30. There are currently ten active arbitrators out of a possible 15, and arbitrator activity appears to have been the cause of some matters before the Committee stalling – for example, motions in the recent ARBPIA amendment request were only recently enacted almost three months after the initial referral from AE, and it has been noted that an email sent to the Committee in the summer containing private evidence may have fell by the wayside as [an] enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into. As someone who has served on ArbCom, is there anything that you think the community, the committee, and/or the WMF could/should do in order to (either directly or indirectly) improve arbitrator retention, and/or prevent arbitrator burnout? ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]