Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/ScottishFinnishRadish/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions at the bottom of the page using the following markup:

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

Use the |list resume= option to correct list numbering issues, by manually specifying the start point.

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

Thank you for standing 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[1] 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.
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.
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]
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.
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.

Just for an update, the consensus at a VP discussion decided (diff) to no longer label RRFA a "policy". George Ho (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
Besides the ARBPIA5 case that you said you'd recuse from in question #3 above, are there any other contentious topic areas on wikipedia you'd feel you need to recuse from? (perhaps radish farming?) Ealdgyth (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do have some views on the right to farm, but I don't think they're sufficiently strong to recuse. I will recuse on any case that deals with the sale or conversion of hay pasture for solar development, though. I'm not broadly involved in the skepticism/pseudoscience/fringe space space but I would recuse if another case concerning the GSoW happened to show up, or any of the editors that I'm involved with from the topic. Aside from that I don't think there is anything I'd be recused from.
Besides your work at AE, what other disputes have you been involved in - any where your efforts led to a resolution of the dispute that did not end up at AE/ANI/AN or any other noticeboard? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This question is the reason for the delay because trying to find diffs across thousands of edits to talk pages and such is pretty time consuming. There are a few ways one can interact with dispute resolution, as an editor involved at the ground level, as a closer assessing consensus, as a third opinion or an extra set of eyes, and as an administrator. I've been involved in disputes in all of these roles. I'll start with the easy one, I've closed a lot of RFCs, including some pretty big ones, and although that second up at AN for a closure review I think that is a bit secondary for purposes of your question. I've also opened RFCs for disputes I wasn't really part of in order to move things in a productive direction. Moving to an RFC when discussion is going in circles is a great way to keep things from escalating.
As for disputes as an editor, I've been in quite a few. I spent a lot of time editing BLPs involved in other contentious topics, e.g. pseudoscience, COVID, and American politics, and it's pretty easy to find yourself in a disagreement. This discussion is a great example of a couple editors coming in hot and ending up with a much improved consensus version. This one was back from my edit request days, back when I was new editor and I worked to explain to another new editor the issues with their request and worked with a couple other editors to make an improvement. There's a lot more, but those two have always stuck in my memory.
As far as being an extra set of eyes goes, at this point it crosses over with my administrator duties, so sometimes I get pinged to offer some input and try and help forge a path forward and see if I can explain one editor's concerns to lower the temperature. I routinely get pinged like that to pop into a discussion and offer a word. I've also offered my talk page as an alternative to making notice board reports to try and calm tensions rather than go straight to another report. Sometimes having the lower-stakes venue is enough on its own, and sometimes it needs a few words but in both cases it's better than another trip to AE. I've also hosted discussions about some of the blurrier lines that people can cross. The past year of my talk page archive is full of discussions like that.
As an administrator I've worked with another admin to explain to a new editor why they were blocked, leading to an unblock without having to move to AN or AE for a full appeal. I'm very happy with how that turned out, since if a new editor has to go to AE or AN to appeal they're almost guaranteed to quit because of the inherent WP:BITE in the whole process. There have also been many times where I've worked very hard to avoid a block or another noticeboard. I did log a warning, but eventually things cooled and no one was blocked, no one was sanctioned, and the disruption stopped.
Topical question, although the RfC has now closed: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I signed the open letter because although the WMF has an obligation to comply with good-faith legal orders I am very concerned that in this case there is a fair chance that the case was not brought in good faith. The chilling effect of releasing editor information to a media company for reporting what reliable sources is significant, and we're already seeing others using this tactic. While I'm not in a position to second guess the foundation's legal strategy I wanted to express my concern about revealing editor information in response to a frivolous lawsuit, and communicate that concern to the WMF in one of the limited ways we have available.
As for the blackout, I don't think that would have been the best way to handle raising awareness of the lawsuit and the community concerns around it. I'm not necessarily in support of this action right now, but I think a better plan would be to go with a banner atop all articles explaining that the fundamental way that Wikipedia is supposed to work is under threat. The whole purpose of a blackout or message is to demonstrate the community's position on something and hopefully get the media discussing it to apply additional pressure on WMF, and I think a banner would do a better job of that.
As you and others have pointed out, you've been the most active administrator on arbitration enforcement over the past couple of years. You've shown dedication and experience there that well-qualify you to move from AE to ArbCom itself, and this question is not meant to test whether or not you should be elected, which you will be, but perhaps to frame some thinking for when you are. Some of the hardest decisions that have to be made, as an admin and as an arbitrator, are in the realm of literal versus more purpose-oriented interpretations of rules, and (related but not the same), as to whether to take a strict/harsh or more lenient approach in imposing sanctions. A few weeks ago, you wrote on AE that I figured I'd mention the lightest action we should take first since I'm pretty sure I already have a reputation as a hanging judge. Why do you think you've obtained that reputation, do you think you deserve it, and does realizing that you have it prompt any thoughts about the strengths or weaknesses of that approach? In the same vein, do you have any thoughts a year later about the block and resulting discussion that so seriously upset me here? Thanks for your thoughts on this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me start by thanking you for your confidence. I wish I could say I was as sure. Hopefully the scrutineering happens quickly this year so I don't have to start on blood pressure medication.
As far as being a hanging judge, that was a bit of my usual levity, although like much humor it was rooted in truth. Part of what comes along with being the most active admin at AE for a while is I end up being the one to pass sentence, often without other input. Often working with silent assent I have closed quite a few threads with sanctions, and when you see the same name doing the sanctioning I expect that lends a bit of a reputation. On top of that, in the interest of keeping things moving along I'm often the first to propose some action when I feel it's warranted. Without actually doing a study of the hundred+ AE threads I've taken part in this year, I'm pretty confident that most of the time my proposals fall in line with most other administrators taking part. Obviously, that isn't always the case, but that is true for anyone. Part of what makes AE work is seeing the differences of opinion, seeing what has some support, and what has little support. This also has an effect (hopefully) on the editors involved with the report. For instance, seeing administrators supporting a widespread 0RR sanction, even if it isn't implemented, may communicate a growing impatience with widespread slow edit wars.
Although I probably fall a bit more on the strict side of things, I do try and adjust my actions based on how consensus plays out at AE and other venues. Using the example of the block you've disagreed with, I have adjusted how I handle violations like 1RR/EBRD, and in most circumstances I make sure to offer the editor a chance to self-revert. I also generally go with a pblock from the start, rather than a full block. I still think that violations of anti-edit warring sanctions are disruptive in and of themselves, but I have adjusted how I go into those situations. If I were in that situation again, I would have offered them a chance to self-revert and probably logged a final warning for violating page sanctions.
I think this gets to one of the strengths of Arbcom. We generally end up with a variety of editors with different viewpoints, styles of administrations, and place on the harsh/lenient scale. Wikipedia works on consensus and compromise, and there will always be disagreements on the best way to handle different situations. I think the most important thing is that one is able to compromise, or accept that consensus is against you. You said recently Please don't worry about disagreeing with me. I probably cast more solo dissenting votes while I was on the Committee than everyone else put together, so why should it stop now? Despite often being the sole dissenter, I don't think anyone would say they didn't respect your input and perspective. It takes all perspectives to make Arbcom work.
If elected to ArbCom, will you stop working at AE, as some arbs do (presumably to avoid needing to recuse if matters are kicked up to the committee)? If so, I presume your loss will be noticeable on that board. Do you have any thoughts on how, as an arbitrator, you (individually or collectively as a committee) could encourage more admins to get involved in arbitration enforcement? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would step back from the more contentious or complicated reports, but I would still lend a hand with the more straightforward cases to keep things moving forward. I'd obviously avoid any appeals, as Arbcom remains a venue of final appeal. I'm sure that others would step up to fill the void. AE worked before I started participating, and it will continue to work if I step back.
As for encouraging admins to participate in AE? That's a difficult question. It's a lot of complicated work, it makes you a target for hostility, it puts your judgement front and center in a high visibility venue. Obviously, asking for assistance from admins is an option, and from what I've seen such requests do result in, at least a short term, increased involvement. I don't think there's really a way to convince admins to take part, though, since most admins probably understand the challenges involved. They have to knowingly step into that, and a lot of people just don't want to. I am very interested in what others think might be able to draw more admins to AE, though. Maybe a legobot style message to an admins asking for input on reports that have been open for longer than a week? More visibility of languishing threads might be enough to get admins who are on the fence, or willing to help out without becoming an "AE admin", to engage.
Given the current antisemitism scandal the encyclopaedia is embroiled in, do you understand the anxieties of Jewish editors and users, as well as the 15 million jews worldwide, whose safety is ultimately put at risk when Wikipedia's processes are hijacked to list resources like the ADL as unrealiable? Will you acknowledge that the encyclopaedia needs to take much firmer action on antisemitism issues at ArbCom level and has been in denial of its scale thus far? Luxofluxo (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're conflating community consensus that an advocacy organization's reporting on a specific conflict is not reliable with antisemitism. As someone who as placed dozens, if not hundreds, of blocks for antisemitism, I think we have a reasonable handle on most of it. There is no way to stop bad actors from popping up from time to time so enforcement is reactive, but we react quickly when we see any sort of bigotry. We even crack down on unnecessarily inflammatory language bordering on antisemitism or any other bigotry. While outside analysis of Wikipedia can be helpful for self-reflection, we also need to understand that it can often lack understanding of Wikipedia's internal processes, and the nuance of decisions like the RSN discussion about ADL. Evidence that antisemitism is not being addressed by the community should be brought to Arbcom, but keep in mind that Arbcom is not in a position to negate community content decisions about source reliability.
There have been and will be public cases involving private evidence. In your opinion, how should the ArbCom maximize transparency with the community in cases involving private evidence while maintaining privacy when necessary?Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I covered this somewhat above in question 4, and again, without a specific situation to discuss all I can say is that Arbcom should do whatever possible in each specific situation to reveal as much as they safely can without risking harm or the privacy of editors and living people. Without knowing the discussions and information available to Arbcom in many situations where decisions were made in private and exactly how such decisions are made there's not a lot I can say about what would maximize the transparency. We know it some situations that the committee has revealed information after the fact, e.g. redacted emails regarding JSS's removal from the committee, and that BM had provided private evidence to Arbcom several months ago. In those cases being ahead of the curve in transparency, like mentioning that private evidence was sent to the committee when some of that information was brought up publicly at ARCA, could have drastically reduced drama. One thing that can certainly help with transparency is actively pushing to release what can safely be released, and doing the work to redact and sanitize that information.
Sometimes the community is divided as to how to deal with editors who make significant content contributions but who are habitually uncivil or otherwise disruptive, and who have accumulated long block logs. Do you think that ArbCom should occasionally hear cases focused on individual editors, and, if so, what criteria should ArbCom use in deciding whether to accept such a case?Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely a place for Arbcom when dealing with individual editors when it has become clear that the community cannot come to a consensus about their behavior. That does not mean that several ANI threads are closed with consensus against action and another editor believes that action should have been taken. Long term behavioral disputes that routinely result in no consensus closures are an indicator that Arbcom and a structured case may be called for. Another would be a situation where there are numerous blocks and unblocks without firm consensus about either action. These types of cases should also not be brought up unless there is a current dispute, as digging at stale issues and picking at scabs isn't really Arbcom's bag.

Violates WP:ARBPIA

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There has been a recent worrying trend whereby editors have injected their political opinions into sensitive Wikipedia topics (in particular, the Israel - Palestinian conflict, although there are many others as well). Editors will bend the rules in order to ensure that their positions are established in the articles (ie deleting any unfavorable edits to pages describing their preferred parties, claiming sources such as Al Jazeera are considered trustworthy while Jerusalem Post is not etc) resulting in a growing mistrust in articles on this platform. Biased editors will also ban or threaten to ban any editors who undo their biased edits and deletions. What actions will you take to reverse this trend which, if unchecked, will permanently damage Wikipedia's reputation?

ARBCOM serves a unique role in proceedings that desysop an admin, that sanction or reinstate editing privileges of an editor when on-wiki and/or off-wiki evidence is compelling. Two questions: [1] what factors will you consider in deciding to desysop an admin when evidence shows that they have been WP:INVOLVED with an editor, yet have taken admin action against that editor or have threatened or scolded or sent hostile messages to that editor off-wiki through email or other forms of private messaging; [2] what factors will you consider in deciding to discipline editor (or a cabal of editors) with WP:COI who insert misinformation or who grossly misrepresent peer-reviewed scholarly sources in en-Wikipedia articles to further their off-wiki advocacy, social media campaigns, political causes and such. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider the level and type of involvement, and the extent of the actions taken. Normally this is something that the community can investigate, but when combined with the off-wiki communication it falls into Arbcom's scope. Depending on the messages sent, how the administrator discovered the off-wiki methods of communication (e.g. simply using the wiki email user function versus independently investigating and searching out off-wiki avenues of communiction), and the content of the messages the case might end up more about off-wiki harassment rather than WP:INVOLVED.
As for factors that I would consider in handling COI, misinformation, and source misrepresentation a lot again depends on the exact situation and evidence available. Is the misrepresentation and misinformation a good faith misreading or misinterpretation of sources, or relying on sources that may be incorrect or biased? What is the type and extent of the COI alleged, and what evidence has been provided? Arbcom has, in the past, placed sanctions requiring consensus for source use and has requested detailed source analysis to deal with misrepresentation, which can be necessary in complex disputes where there is legitimate concern about widespread source issues.
Could you link me to some of your edits that deal with highly complex moral or controversial topics (sexual crimes, political repression, colonization history, high profile entertainers and such) and edits on talk pages regarding similar themes in which you acted as an arbitrator? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already covered my administrative work in CTOPs, which covers pretty much all of this, but here's some contentious BLP stuff from a while ago that also fits into your request.