Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Aoidh/Questions

Arbitration Committee Election 2023 candidate: Aoidh

Individual questions

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.

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]
I don't think I've made any administrative actions that came with any real fallout or were tough calls to make, but I think the toughest administrative decision I made was when I decided it was best to not use administrative tools in a situation, as I did here. Given that the editor came to me specifically to try to get another editor blocked, it felt inappropriate to be the one to act in that situation, given that up to that point I had been the only administrator to have blocked either of them, and I had blocked the editor in question twice already at that point. With that in mind I felt it was best to let a different administrator review the relevant ANI and ANEW reports to avoid even the appearance of any sort of bias or impropriety, but I say that's the toughest because I sat on that for a while trying to decide what the best course of action was. - Aoidh (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 did commit in June 2020 to working on reducing Category:Unassessed Buddhism articles, which at the time had a bit over 2,500 articles. By July 2022 I had gotten it down to 1,500 and decided to empty it completely, and got it to 0 by November 2022. The primary difficulty in that task was the repetitiveness of assessing that many articles, but I had committed to clearing it out and made sure it got done. - Aoidh (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
As far as that case in particular, it looks like private information was sent to ArbCom on or about August 26, and on September 10 the two editors were told they needed to disclose their shared IP publicly, both Mark Ironie and CV doing so the next day, which was the day before the ArbCom case was opened. With that timeframe in mind that may explain why nothing was said, as the investigation may have still been ongoing. As a more general answer, it very much depends on the nature of the private information, the situation being discussed, and so on. In my experience in dealing with private information in a professional setting, there are unfortunately times where even openly acknowledging the mere existence of private information is enough to indicate what that information is. ArbCom needing to be transparent and accountable while also needing to keep private information private is an unfortunate dichotomy, but I would say that ArbCom should be as transparent as privacy considerations permit. - Aoidh (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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!}⚓ 17:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have experience with handling large caseloads containing private information by way of handling insurance claims; it's easy to look at a massive caseload and get overwhelmed which can lead to little to nothing getting done, but what I've found when dealing with large caseloads is it's best to partition them into groups of around five, that way I can focus on getting five done, and then five more if I can, and so on. When I'm focusing on getting five done it allows me to focus on what needs to be done in that moment rather than worrying about what needs to be done in the aggregate, and helps ensure I don't rush through them just to clear them out; that way I can give each item the appropriate amount of attention it needs while also getting the job done. - Aoidh (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
According to an article in The Jerusalem Post, ArbCom initiating the full case is not something that has happened before. A
WP:APL. This talk page discussion about the scope does support that rationale, though there is certainly a difference between amending a previous case and opening a new full case. I think a full case was warranted in that situation, and given commentary at places like AN the matter seemed headed for ArbCom one way or another, but should ArbCom have been the ones to initiate it? Since it was revisiting a topic that already had ArbCom cases I don't think it was wrong to do so, but I do think it shouldn't set a precedent or become a matter of course, and I don't think ArbCom should self-initiate any cases that aren't within its "all matters previously heard" scope. - Aoidh (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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?Ϣere SpielChequers 10:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it very much depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
WP:TOOLMISUSE says Serious misuse may result in sanctions or even their removal (emphasis mine). With that in mind I think it's reasonable to consider alternative actions other than just going straight to a desysop. As for examples, I don't want to focus on a specific editor, but there are a few administrators listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee that prohibit certain administrative actions without removing the tools entirely, so there is precedent for considering sanctions that do not go straight to a desysop. - Aoidh (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The UCoC is a baseline, bare minimum for all Wikimedia projects, and while things like its Harassment section does cover intelligence, disability, and age (making the comments about the two admins potentially harassment) Wikipedia:Harassment is more thorough and goes beyond the UCoC. Generally speaking, I think the English Wikipedia's own policies should be the standard, as they go beyond the UCoC's minimum requirements in every instance I could find. However, the UCoC states that "designated functionaries" may impose sanctions related to the UCoC, so while it is something to keep in mind generally speaking if someone is harassing someone then they can be blocked per enwiki policy without necessarily having to go to a functionary for that issue. As far as ArbCom actions, the first thing that should be done is to make sure that any revdel/suppressible material is handled appropriately, because the safety of all involved is paramount. Regarding the RfA, given the short timespan that an RfA is open it would depend on the specifics as to what should be done, and if the UCoC or any of the enwiki policies are relevant. So long as there is nothing that requires immediate action from ArbCom, ArbCom would ideally let the community and the bureaucrats handle the RfA, unless they they determine they are unable to or ask for ArbCom's intervention during or after the conclusion of the RfA. For the rest of the issues, that sounds like something that may require a full case or action from ArbCom, which would be determined as usual. - Aoidh (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love to sing the music of
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) 11:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
When contentious topics restrictions are put in place, it provides a mechanism in which disruptive behavior can be more rapidly dealt with, but it is not by itself a solution to longstanding disputes that are intractable enough to require a CT designation. It provides that framework, but disputes within the topic area will still happen, and RfCs are still a good way to resolve disputes that get to point of needing that level of resolution. What that RfC specifically tells me is that the subject of infoboxes is in no way a settled debate on Wikipedia, and my advice for peace in those discussions would be the same as any other dispute, things like
discussing contributors instead of content, being respectful even if you disagree, and using dispute resolution options like RfC when it's clear that one is needed to settle a dispute. I know these aren't novel ideas by any means, but they are a good standard to set to help keep a discussion on track. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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 am familiar with the Law and Social Inquiry article, but I had not read Konieczny's 2017 paper before so I had to take the time to read it. The "Biases in collegiate courts" section on pages 5–6 provides interesting examples of various types of biases that are relevant to ArbCom and are (for myself) worth keeping in mind. To your first question, biases exist in so many forms that if someone claims they are unbiased, then they are simply unaware of their own biases. While it is not possible for a person to be truly unbiased, everyone (ArbCom and otherwise) should strive to be as unbiased as possible, which is why diversity in ArbCom and the community at large is so important. To the point of off-wiki canvassing, that is always a concern because if done right there's no indication that it's happening and things like consensus are swayed in an inorganic and inappropriate way. As for the "tenure" issue, I would like to think it doesn't happen as often as complaints about it suggest, but it does happen to varying degrees. The 2023 Grisel paper suggests that a possible explanation is that editors with more experience are less likely to act disruptively, and I think there's some truth to that, but tenure does not excuse behavior; those with significant experience should be more aware of what is inappropriate on Wikipedia, so I think all of those factors are something that ArbCom should keep in mind when evaluating cases. To your followup question, I think mindfullness and transparency (so far as privacy-related issues allow) is the best way to address such concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your statement you give an example of a
third opinion as an example of why you're ready to serve on ArbCom and in response to Question 1 suggest you haven't made any hard decisions. Can you explain how a non-binding opinion about content - which is outside of ArbCom's remit - has prepared you for ArbCom while not having made any difficult administrative decisions? Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That is a very fair question. I have made types of administrative decisions that sometimes get pushback, like removing permissions from editors, implementing topic bans and CBANS, but if an action is going to be controversial, I try to "look before I leap" and fully examine and discuss it beforehand as needed and figure out why it would be controversial. I recognize that not every dispute can be resolved in a way that is without controversy, but the goal is that when it is time to actually use the tools, there's no difficulty in making that decision and minimized chance of controversy. I think that mindset is a good fit for ArbCom, since the idea is to resolve disputes in a way that is methodical and reasoned and does not further inflame things, but to also act decisively when it is time to make that decision. A lot of times the difference between a controversial administrative action and a non-controversial one is the way in which is it done and the way that it is explained. It's not that I don't come across situations that are at first appearance a hard call or that I am afraid to act, but taking the time to examine the situation typically removes any difficulty with how to address it. - Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping in mind that I am not privy to the private information that was involved, I think the Stephen case findings of fact, specifically the difference between Initial contact with Stephen and desysop and Stephen's explanations sufficient could have been elaborated on a bit more for clarity. I understand it was involving private information which limits what can be shared publicly, and to the "explanations being sufficient" point I understand that sometimes an elaboration provides an appropriate explanation that an initial response may not. However, when taking the discussions at the Proposed decisions page into account, while I'm not saying I disagree with the result (as again, I am not privy to the private information that formed the basis of that result) the wording of the "Stephen's explanations sufficient" finding of fact feels like it could have used some elaboration, especially given the slim margin by which it passed and subsequent comments at the closure discussion. I do want to acknowledge though that it's far easier for me to sit on the sidelines and suggest that something be worded differently, especially well after the fact, and quite another to have to balance transparency and privacy effectively in the moment. - Aoidh (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest issue ArbCom has had is burnout. Even if subtle in some ways and more obvious in others, it creates a butterfly effect in how ArbCom functions, and how I would handle that is to not only make sure that I'm pulling my own weight in what needs to be done, but also to make sure that I personally minimize the risk of burnout for myself. Through my career I have been given opportunities to engage with various types of methods for avoiding burnout, and so I have experience with what works for me and what doesn't, because there's not a one-size-fits-all solution for things like that. - Aoidh (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most important type of editor? ltb d l (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most important type of editor is one who, in good faith, wants to improve Wikipedia. You can learn guidelines and policies and how to format citations and so on, but that desire to want to leave something better than you found it is a trait worth having. - Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltb d l (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly understand the appeal of requiring an account and understand why it's a popular subject of discussion, to the point that it is a perennial proposal, but I think such a restriction (minimal though it is) goes against the "anyone can edit" ethos and would not be beneficial to the English Wikipedia in the long term. This experiment with such an implementation I think is worth reading for an example of how making that requirement may not have the intended results. - Aoidh (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Subtle vandalism like that is often the most damaging, as it's often harder to catch. While not all incorrect information added to an article is vandalism, it sometimes is, and should first and foremost be corrected once the change has been recognized as being incorrect, and then handled as appropriately depending on the nature of the edit(s). - Aoidh (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under
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
]
My
wheel warring is prima facie disruptive and inappropriate, and a warning or sanctions may be appropriate. As for the English Wikipedia's right to come to a certain consensus that overrides the WMF, it very much depends on the specifics of what that consensus is. There are some things that have legal considerations that protect not only the WMF but Wikipedia editors, and some things that seem like they are a decision made by the WMF are actually adherence to a legal requirement.With that in mind the answer to whether I would support that consensus very much depends on the specifics of what the consensus is regarding. - Aoidh (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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]
I know that
WP:PERM, but even then it would have to be somewhat unique in its implementation given that they require adherence to the Access to nonpublic personal data policy. With the PERM route I also don't think it should be a unilateral decision by a single administrator, but as a very rough draft idea I could see something like having a certain number of bureaucrats or functionaries signing off on the request instead of going through ArbCom. So the conditions I would ideally like to see is avoiding a full-blown RfA-style process but also making sure such a candidate is properly vetted by more than one individual. - Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

At what point does
WP:STONEWALLING escalate beyond just a content dispute into disruptive behavior that is appropriate for ANI or AE to act on? Sennalen (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There are many different ways a person can stonewall a discussion or dispute so there isn't a one-size-fits-all response or a definitive line to cross. It is appropriate to take it to a noticeboard like ANI when an editor in good faith uses their best judgement and determines that it has reached a level of disruption that requires it being addressed through an appropriate noticeboard. It depends on the specifics of the situation as to what action, if any, is needed. Sometimes the comment can simply be left alone if it's
WP:DDE encompasses disruptive editing as a whole rather than just stonewalling, but it does provide good examples of when certain actions might be appropriate for a given situation. - Aoidh (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one that I would at least partially disagree with is the first point under User:Guerillero/Guide to Arbitration#Evidence that says Parties receive only 1000 words and 100 diffs; everyone else gets 500 words and 50 diffs which is true, but does omit that extensions can be requested and granted for additional words as needed (though it is by no means a guarantee). I absolutely agree with the point that's being made, but while the possibility of an additional allotment is an exception, it does happen; additional allotments were granted in 3 of the 5 cases in 2023 (Smallcat, AlisonW, and World War II and the history of Jews in Poland) and I saw no such requests that were denied this year. - Aoidh (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently finished a rewrite of Genghis Khan. What is the worst problem with the article at this revision, and why? Please reference relevant policies or guidelines. I am asking this question to candidates whose ability to evaluate/write content I am not immediately convinced by.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Content evaluation of that nature is outside of the scope of ArbCom and would likely require something similarly situated to a GAN-level analysis to properly answer that question. However, since it was asked to determine the ability to evaluate and write content and the article was just listed as a GAN I will say that I have reviewed two GANs (Talk:WUPA/GA1 and Talk:K-Meleon/GA1) and written or improved six articles to GA status, so I do have some experience on both sides of that process. - Aoidh (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the world are you based? BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the US State of Georgia in the Eastern Time Zone, which is at this time of year UTC−05:00. - Aoidh (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English is indeed the language with the most speakers globally. I did comment on the nature of bias in my answer to Question 9, but people have a natural tendency to apply the standards they are familiar with to information they encounter, and that does lead to unintentional bias by both editors and sources. The best tool against that type of bias is diversity in sources and editors, but it will always be something to be mindful of when editing. - Aoidh (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]