Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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

2. Thank you for standing :) ArbCom makes a lot of tough decisions in user conduct cases, often with potential for community blowback. What's the toughest (or, one of the toughest) decisions you've made with the admin tools? Preferably a situation related to user-conduct, although anything'll do. Talk about the way you approached the situation, the weighed factors, how you came to a decision, any fallout that came as a result, and if you would have done anything differently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   These situations (taking tricky user-conduct decisions) come up reasonably frequently at SPI and in the wider work of a Checkuser. These cases involve making a determination as to whether a user is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, ranging from simple "playground nonsense" socking to mess about, through to complex long-term abuse involving organised disinformation operations aiming to sway our coverage of political matters. When weighing the evidence in such cases, the stakes are reasonably high - SPI blocks are given a reasonably high deference by convention, and Checkuser blocks are given an extremely high deference by policy. When blocking, I need to be as confident as I can be that I am making the right call, to a higher threshold than when making a block under a different policy (e.g. for vandalism). I need to ensure that if questioned on the reasoning (which may involve a fairly complex logic chain) I can explain it to a fellow admin or CU. The consequences of not blocking and being wrong, while lower, are still potentially significant - I could allow abusive accounts to continue to disrupt the project (although this is an easier case to remedy at a later date than blocking incorrectly).
   In terms of how I make those decisions, it is all about the probative value of evidence - does the evidence we have pass my confidence threshold for "these accounts are related and being used abusively". We can almost never reach certainty, we can only look to become "sure enough". A similar logic can be applied to the types of user conduct cases that come before ArbCom. We need to ensure that the problem has reached the threshold for a case (i.e. the issue cannot be handled by the community); we then need to assess the evidence, and draw conclusions as to the least amount of action that will solve the problem and prevent (further) disruption to the project or harm to contributors. We are never going to be able to make everybody happy, in some cases nobody will be 100% pleased with the outcome - that is the unfortunate reality of dispute resolution - but we can ensure that we find the best outcome for the community as a whole. firefly ( t · c ) 13:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I am keenly aware from chats with current arbs of the increased pressure that having a "below-capacity" committee places on those that are active. I told myself that I would only run at ACE if I believed I would have the time to commit to do the work over the term if elected - and to the best of my knowledge I believe I will have said time. As a more direct answer to your question, there have been multiple occasions where I have been less active than usual but have received a ping about something - perhaps an issue with a Toolforge tool I maintain or an administrative issue I've been involved with. I will always make time to give a timely reply and (if relevant) look into whatever it is. Sometimes doing the actual work takes longer, but I try to keep people informed so they're not left wondering. If others are in some way relying on me to do something I owe it to them, and the community, to try to get it done. firefly ( t · c ) 13:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   In short - "yes". ArbCom is uniquely empowered to handle complex conduct issues involving private evidence, and I believe that this is (a) a reasonable situation (we will always need a body capable of handling such evidence) and (b) something that ArbCom generally handles well on the merits of the situations. However, I do think that the Committee could do more to clarify the results of such cases and empower the community to deal with the aspects that it is capable of handling.
   Perhaps in cases where there is both a private evidence component and a public/on-wiki component, the Committee could handle only the private component, give a suitably redacted summary of its findings, and pass the remainder of the matter back to the community. Naturally, there will be cases where the Committee feels the community is not able or not best placed to resolve the full matter, but I believe it usually owes the community a chance.
   I have opted not to comment on the specific case you mention as I obviously do not have access to all the evidence therein, and feel it would therefore be unwise for me to talk about specifics. firefly ( t · c ) 13:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8. The majority of ArbCom's workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   In answer to the "private" portion of "large volume of private work", I am already familiar with the processes and rules around working with private matters through my work as a Checkuser. Private arbitration matters should of course only be discussed in appropriate fora such as the arbcom-en lists or IRC channels restricted to arbitrators.
   In answer to the "large volume" portion, I feel well-placed to ensure that 'the work gets done'. My real-life work involves a fair amount of coordinating and aligning between different people, and this is something I'm happy to bring to ArbCom if elected (e.g. ensuring that things don't fall between the cracks, that messages get a timely reply, that motions do not languish indefinitely without a clear outcome). In my statement I express a desire to improve the Committee's workflow tooling in order to reduce the amount of administration - this could (hopefully!) streamline the private work of the Committee significantly. firefly ( t · c ) 19:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10. In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an "unwritten rule" that ArbCom doesn't open cases of it's own volition - it acts only on a 'referral' from the community. There is an exception however, which the case you mention falls under - essentially ArbCom reserves the right to revisit matters previously referred to it. That case was indeed exceptional - triggered by the publication of a journal article making serious allegations about bias and manipulation in a sensitive topic area, and revisited a large number of prior proceedings with overlapping scope.
    I think the principle of not opening cases without a referral is a good one, but I also think that it is sensible for ArbCom to reserve a right to revisit cases should an potential deficiency be found later on. Such power should, in my opinion, only be used to handle true outliers such as this case. firefly ( t · c ) 20:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12. Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?ϢereSpielChequers 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a tricky needle to thread - being an administrator is a position of community trust, and therefore it is a reasonably commonly held opinion (as far as I can tell) that an admin who requires formal conduct restrictions has lost that essential community trust and therefore shouldn't be an admin at all. Not to say that ArbCom has never attempted 'admin probation' - the remedy in the GiantSnowman case was such a thing. Ultimately for such a resolution to prove effective it requires the admin in question to be willing to reflect on and modify their conduct, and for the incident in question to be insufficiently serious to warrant a straight desysop. Such cases appear to be rare from what I can see in the archives.
    I think ultimately that 'admin probation' where specific actions or actions in a specific area are restricted is a useful remedy for ArbCom to have in their toolbox, and it is certainly something I could see myself proposing for discussion should a suitable case arise. firefly ( t · c ) 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14. There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached in this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? ϢereSpielChequers 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think that basing ArbCom findings or remedies on the UCoC is particularly helpful, in this hypothetical case or more generally. As far as I can tell, English Wikipedia policies either impose the same rules or in many cases impose more stringent rules than the UCoC, and therefore there is no need to refer to the UCoC when resolving matters.
    
    As for the hypothetical case requests, I am assuming for the sake of argument that sensible prior dispute resolution has been attempted.
    You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility - you don't specify why the protection was made, but let's assume that it was a bad idea for one reason or another. Unless said admin doubles down and refuses to accept that their action was unwise, or this is part of a pattern of tool abuse, I'm not seeing all that much actionable here beyond perhaps an informal reminder. I also note that the "senility" comment would appear to be a personal attack, and potentially sanctionable.
    
    Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager - this does not seem at all to be anything approaching a case, although that statement would appear to be suppressible (as it implies the admin is under 13). The hypotheticals branch out quite far, but I foresee some sort of sanction for the claimants as they are either outing a minor or telling falsehoods in order to exert some sort of control.
    
    Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. - this one could be interesting. Worth mentioning at the start that the "rows of squares" comment seems to be a violation of our civility policy. We now have several questions to answer about the underlying facts: Were these votes actually canvassed or otherwise improper? Could these votes have swung the outcome of the RfA? (e.g. 15 votes in a 220/2/2 RfA would be unlikely to have a practical impact) If the answers are "yes" and "yes", then we are somewhat off the edges of the map and we would need to figure out the most sensible resolution, almost certainly alongside the bureaucrats.
    Given that this matter seems to be high-profile in this scenario (e.g. protests about actions on the English Wikipedia), I think it would be wise for ArbCom to keep WMF Trust & Safety informed of their actions. firefly ( t · c ) 20:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16. I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That RfC seems to show that there can still be disagreement about whether infoboxes add value to an article, but (at least in that specific case) the disagreement seems milder than it has been in the past. It appears that we have reached "peace" (perhaps an uneasy one?), which means there doesn't seem to be anything requiring ArbCom attention here. (Addendum: For full clarity, I do not believe I would support any revocation of the CT authorisation for Infoboxes. While the situation is better than before, there are clearly still entrenched opinions on both sides, and I think the CT designation is one of the things that allows for the formerly boiling dispute to have reduced to below a simmer.) firefly ( t · c ) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18. Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?

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

    I do not have major concerns about the structure of ArbCom - I have some concerns about its operational efficiency as mentioned in my statement, but I realise that is not what you are getting at. ArbCom is not perfect, because humans are not perfect - we all have biases and blindspots because of our background, our professions, our experiences. However, with a sufficiently large and sufficiently diverse-in-thought group you can mitigate the impact of these individual biases - which is something I believe ArbCom does reasonably well.
    I think the factors identified in the first paper you cite are far from unique to Wikipedia, and aren't something we could effectively eliminate. I also note that the paper doesn't seem to make any attempt to assess the actual merits of the disputes considered, nor do they appear to be aware that the respondents to their surveys could be exaggerating things either intentionally or unintentionally because of their own biases. I am a computer scientist, not a social scientist, so perhaps I am missing something, but I do not find the argument presented at all persuasive. firefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20. In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this one is reasonably easy - Remedy 11 of Conduct in deletion-related editing initiated a structured RfC around mass nominations at AfD, later expanded via consensus to also cover mass creation of articles. Moderators were selected and it was determined that the RfC should be closed by a panel. The first RfC (mass creations) happened, but for various reasons the mass deletion RfC did not. Six months after the remedy was passed, it was revoked owing to momentum around the RfCs decaying away. I do not think that ArbCom-initiated RfCs are a bad idea per se - but I think there were various structural issues in this specific case that led to things not working well. To avoid waffling on I will leave it there, if you are interested in more specifics please do ask a follow-up question. firefly ( t · c ) 20:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22. In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another easy one! :) Workflow tooling and efficiency for arbitrators. I talk about this in my statement, but in short arbs seem to spend a lot of time managing emails and keeping track of what needs looking at and/or voting on. This sucks up time that could be usefully spent elsewhere, as arbitrators or editors. There are lots of ideas around how to improve this from many current arbs, candidates, and former committee members. I think - if elected - the best thing I can do is collate these ideas and try to distill out of them a workable solution. I do not want to pre-judge what that solution may be until I have seen all of the "product requirements", but I think it is critical that we keep the ball rolling on this - if we roll it hard enough we may just smash through the wall of inefficiency. firefly ( t · c ) 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24. what is the most important type of editor? ltbdl (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no such thing. Wikipedia has many different types of editor (for the purposes of this answer I am talking about constructive editors) - those who focus on writing new content, those who focus on taking existing content and improving it / putting it through quality review processes, those who write templates or modules, or run bots. The list of potential areas to work on is long, and pretty much every area could benefit from more resource. Most editors do one or more of the things I listed across their Wikipedia career.
    I also want to emphasise a point I made in my statement - it is not the types of editors we should be concerned about, but the diminishing number of editor-hours seemingly available. A rising tide lifts all boats, and if we can encourage new editors to begin their time with us we will almost certainly gain editor-hours across all the various aspects of Wikipedia. firefly ( t · c ) 20:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

26. do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltbdl (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Would I support turning off unregistered editing today - probably not. Would I support it in the likely-near-future world where IP masking is a thing, making anti-abuse efforts meaningfully more difficult? Yes, absolutely. Should we do such a thing, we should of course ensure that our account registration process (already one of the easiest on the Internet) is fully accessible to those using assistive technology such as screen readers (I believe the CAPTCHA process we use currently is not accessible) to ensure the barriers to entry are as low as possible while limiting abuse. firefly ( t · c ) 20:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

28. Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

30. Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

32. The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]