User:Cyberpower678/sandbox

Individual questions

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.

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)

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.

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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.

Thank you for your answer, Primefac
Why was momentary admin candidate Saqib BLOCKED? {{ArbComBlock}} only answers the question "who?", not "why?" – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am not free to discuss the matter or provide information on what prompted this block.
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)
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.
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)
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.
What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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) 14:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
It is flawed, panicky, and the Foundation is considering disclosing identifying private information about volunteer editors is patently false because it is built on a lack of information.

Thanks for answering before I even remembered to sign. Full marks for succinctness. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
You are the only arbitrator running for re-election that has not yet commented on the CheckUser and COIVRT appointments noticeboard discussion. I'd be interested to learn your thoughts on how the Committee handled Bishonen's unexpected rejection, and –if you are comfortable with sharing it– what your vote on Bishonen was. Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I have not commented primarily because the other Arbs have said most of what I would have said myself, but I fully agree with HJ Mitchell's statement That the appointments were announced publicly before an unsuccessful candidate was told the reasons for their failure is disgraceful. This was not handled well, for various reasons, and we are taking steps that means it hopefully does not happen again.

Thank you. Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
How do you propose to deal with 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 this at ArbCom level? Luxofluxo (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
This is a rather loaded question, and not one that I am sure I can give a proper answer to without spending an inordinate amount of time researching; I am not even sure what "the current antisemitism scandal" is referring to. I will note that WP:RSPADL indicates that ADL is "generally considered reliable" outwith the ARBPIA areas.
I suppose the best answer I can give to the question of How do you propose to deal with [it] is to suggest filing a case request; if there really is an intractable issue that the community cannot deal with on its own, then ArbCom should take a look.
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) 06:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I know this may sound like a simplistic solution to a complex problem, but posting as much information as possible maximizes transparency. Just like at COIN or other dispute resolution boards, it is possible to say something like "User:Joe Bloggs has a COI with Acme Corp <private evidence>" without needing to indicate what that private evidence may be, or its provenance. Following the evidence phase of a case, if there is private evidence we will almost always let the party/parties related to that evidence know what has been presented (so they can rebut) and we generally post a top-level summary of that private evidence so if necessary it can be referred to in the PD.
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) 06:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom can (and does) occasionally hear cases on individual editors, though lately it has ended up looking at a subject area even if the case request was against a specific editor (mainly due to how the case request is laid out). I think the criteria should be the same for any case request: that the filer and commentors make a reasonable case why the community is unable to handle the issue(s) with the editor in question.

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HonestEditor51 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
As an Arbitrator, I can act within the arbitration process to handle disputes that the community cannot deal with on their own. If someone feels there is a problematic trend of behaviour that the community cannot deal with itself, they should bring a case request before the Committee, wherein I (and my fellow Arbitrators) will determine whether there is merit to the request and (if a case is taken up) determine how best to lower the temperature of the dispute and deal with problematic editors and situations. Our most recent example of this (as it relates to editors attempting to spin sources in certain directions) was WP:HJP.

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) 06:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom can (and does) occasionally hear cases on individual editors, though lately it has ended up looking at a subject area even if the case request was against a specific editor (mainly due to how the case request is laid out). I think the criteria should be the same for any case request: that the filer and commentors make a reasonable case why the community is unable to handle the issue(s) with the editor in question.