Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Worm That Turned

Worm That Turned

Hi folks. I'm here to stand for the Arbitration Committee. I have spent something like 2/3s of the past 12 years on the committee, and strive to be a voice of reason on there, please do look at my history to find out more.

I have achieved a lot as an Arb, and am proud of my contributions, though I accept there have been places where the circle could not be squared and I came down on the wrong side, I hope I have learned from these mistakes. You can also see my article contributions, FAs and GAs, also linked from my user page.

So, why this run? I have concerns about the committee since I have left a year ago. The main one is around morale, which I'm judging by the significant inactivity and retirements. I believe that this is an area I excel, keeping the committee going. Next, internal communication and concerns about other arbs - if I see a problem within the committee, I handle it head on. I discuss it openly and I make sure the individual who the community has placed their trust in can course correct.

I will address the obvious concerns. My activity, I have been inactive on Wikipedia since the beginning of the year. This was down to my work outside Wikipedia, where I was leading many small projects simultaneously and the context switch, a skill I've learned from the committee was exhausting - since June, this work has been outsourced, meaning I have some more time available. I haven't taken the plunge into editing again, but I do feel I am ready to do so.

Secondly, I am not currently an administrator and I have committed to running a reconfirmation RfA rather than simply asking for the tools back. I will do this prior to being elected, so you will have two places to judge me.

Finally, I've never been a high volume work load arb, and I don't expect to be one this time either. I will respond promptly though and will not hold up the committee decisions

I have never edited for pay, though I have received swag as part of my volunteering over the past 15 years.

I have also signed the non public data agreement and am not aware of any reason I am ineligible. My sock drawer has not changed in years, User:WormTT, User:Wormbot, User:Worm That Trains and User:Wyrm That Turned

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 and for your past service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a former member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, and thank you for your questions. I like to think that I had more successes than failures, though many of my successes are less visible, and I've got quite a few to think back upon. The thing I'm most proud of, is my part in encouraging the responsibility for "child protection" to be moved from the community to the foundation, even all these years later. Besides that clear point, my main successes are harder to quantify - I have helped keep the committee focussed during some tough times, helped reduce controversy internally and externally with a well placed word.
With regard to failures - the places we've lost contributors stick with me. It may be that we needed to take that final tough decision to remove soemone from the encyclopedia, or it may be that an otherwise good long term editor needs to have user-rights or even just status removed. If that individual subsequently disengages, we as a community has lost something, and that's a failure. Similarly, if an editor leaves because of a decision we've made - then we haven't been clear enough about the reasons and our choices - again, that's a failure. As I say, these things stick with me and help me try to make the right choices, earlier in the future, so that we don't get into these situations.
Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past couple of years, Wikipedia as a project has moved from "the" reference, to "a" reference to the man on the street. All that lovely Google juice is still pointing over here, but AI is summarising the information for the consumer far earlier, and I believe the people reading our pages has shrunk. And so the pessimism - I do believe the pace of LLMs, and ways of transforming that information into being processed by individuals has started to push our wonderful project to obsolescence - less people reading means less editors fixing, and risks of manipulation of content. Yet - there is optimism to be seen too - we do have more active editors than we have in years. The LLMs need training, and our content is good and available - so we are still having an effect on those future generations. More to the point, those who do not trust the AI still have us here, solid and reliable. We're not going anywhere, there's budget to keep us here for years to come. We need to protect what we have and be open to new and wonderful ways it will be used, giving knowledge to the world.
What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The standard should be "we shouldn't do it unless absolutely necessary". I don't like secret evidence cases, they're not visible to the community who are our backstop - and so there needs to be a very good reason for one. As for the rest - the accused should have the right to respond to evidence against them, though depending on the scenarios, they may not have a right to "face the accuser" - we're not a court - but equally, I find it hard to picture scenarios where it's got to Arbcom and the accused cannot know who has made the accusation.
The one scenario I can think of was WP:FRAM - but that was Arbcom trying to fix a mess of how it was handled, rebuild a fractured community and deal with the underlying issue, all with our hands tied on what we could see and what we could say. I'd rather not go through that again.

It's been done. In the Racepacket case, ArbCom issued a finding against me based on secret evidence. Not only do I not know who the accuser was, but ArbCom did not disclose to me the nature of the accusation, leaving me unable to defend myself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become ~~procedural policy~~. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recall system isn't ready yet - I'm not sure it was ever really ready enough to pass the RfC, despite the fact I am for recall and believe such things should be in the hands of the community. From an Arbcom point of view, I do not believe it should affect our way of working - besides being evidence that dispute resolution has been attempted. This would be similar to the historic situation, if someone had initiated a voluntary recall, and then gone to Arbcom afterwards.
I'm afraid this makes things more unpleasant for administrators, as they may have to face multiple reviews of the same incident - but the systems, such as they are, are mutually exclusive.

Just for an update, the consensus at a VP discussion decided (diff) to no longer label RRFA a "policy". George Ho (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a previous ACE I asked you this question: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters? To which you answered: I’d prefer that the arbitration committee does no investigation themselves - where evidence is incorrect, I would expect that to be highlighted by other case participants. In the pure hypothesis that all the participants - for whatever reason - were accusers, but it had been pointed out by the accused that the evidence may require investigation, would your answer be different today? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did say that and I stand by it. Before I address your hypothetical, I'd like to explain a little bit more about why I believe this. The committee deals with all sorts of cases, across the entire breadth of Wikipedia. The committee are not experts in those fields, we have millions of topics and just and handful of arbitrators. So, the committee members already have a lot to manage, to understand and weigh accuracy of what is presented. Add on top of that, cases should be written in a manner that future editors can understand not only what the decision was, but why it was made.
And so to your hypothetical, if we have a small number of participants, one "accused" subject and the remainder on raising evidence, the subject claims that the evidence requires investigation. I would not expect Arbitrators to go looking for more evidence, in fact I would actively discourage it. I would be asking the subject to expand on their point - to give that context of why it requires investigation. I have no issue with arbitrators reading around the issue to understand the context, especially if it is presented to them, by any case participant. There's a difference between "looking for evidence" and "reading the context".

'Looking for evidence' is not quite the same as examining the veracity of the evidence where doubt has been expressed. In that previous ACE, you did continue by saying: What the committee does have a duty to do is weigh the evidence, making a decision on the balance between level of the negative impact and the quality / quantity of the evidence provided - in other words, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence, patterns should be shown etc. I think that covers it. Thank you for your answer, WTT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And all that still holds true too. Worm^TT(talk) 17:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of prelimary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Committee members should never go in looking to implement a specific remedy. If the case is cut and dried enough that there is a clear outcome, it should be handled by motion. You never know what evidence will be presented during a case, and they can turn significantly away from the case request structure - so being willing to move away from preconceptions is essential.
"I have achieved a lot as an Arb, and am proud of my contributions". Can you tell us about some of things you have achieved? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not great at blowing my own trumpet, and will preface my answer to mention that everything achieved on Arbcom is a team effort, and by focussing on the things I'm proud of, I absolutely do not want to take away from other arbitrators who also worked hard on the same.
So, now that's out of the way, top of my list is "Child Protection". In my first term on Arbcom, I was very hot on this, with a firm no nonsense approach - and taking some steps to pressure the foundation publicly to take responsibility for the area. Although burned out a the end of the term, I did receive confirmation before I left that they would be taking that responsibility on.
I have had a firm stance on poor administrator behaviour for years, having drafted and lead voting on cases where administrators have fell below community expectations - while equally trying to find solutions that did not ostracise the individual as a community member.
I helped lead the committee (and by extention the community) through an extremely tough period, and while I may have acted differently in hindsight, I believe I made the best choices I could at the time - finding a way for the community to heal and move forward. I ended up dropping the case I was trying to draft to focus on that case and remained fully engaged throughout the case.
On top of those highlights, I've helped to decide countless cases, been willing to stand up for my principles on those, offered encouragement to new arbitrators, been the voice of reason / voice of experience behind the scenes. Worm^TT(talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harry, you know I'm the ultimate devil's advocate (Yay, I bluelinked!), so I could probably argue against any of your musings, if I needed to. Because I'm that sort of person, I'll pick one from each area.
Let's see - Editors whose focus is politicking in project space and at administrators' noticeboards, especially on matters they're not involved in, are a net negative to Wikipedia. No, simply. The behaviour is not beneficial, but that does not mean they are a "net negative". Perhaps the hypothetical individual who only does this might be - but Wikipedians are rounded individuals, they spend time doing other stuff. If participating in project space makes them feel more of the community, then it should be encouraged - just modified to be more productive.
I often hear people say they can't find anything to write about, or that everything already has an article... For these people I wouldn't focus on redlinks but instead suggest expansion of topics they find interesting. Admittedly, I'm lucky enough to have found some interesting subjects without articles, but I've also expanded or reworked articles that were in a sorry state. I remember finding a vital article Drink in this state and changed it to this. You can't say there's nothing to write about just because the articles exist - there's always more to do.
Editors (or small groups) who successfully research, write, and nominate a featured article should be allowed a by-line if they want it. I'm not totally against this as a way to encourage featured articles, which require a lot of dedication to bring it to the resting place - however it's against our community's basic philosophy. Every article is a collaboration - it's updated by editors, maintained by other editors, reviewed by yet more editors. I've worked on two WP:Four Award articles, and I would never claim a "by Worm That Turned" on either, they're not "mine" and if I wanted my work published in my name, I would go elsewhere.
RfA is a cesspit where we invite people to abuse candidates with impunity for a week. Adminship is a position of trust and some vetting and critical discussion is absolutely necessary. But dedicated editors volunteering to take on extra work deserve better. That many of these people have left the site after their treatment at RfA should be a source of shame. This one really speaks to me - I've spent so many years working on RfA reform, and did come up with the idea that has turned into WP:Admin elections, so yes, I certainly agree RfA is not good enough. but actually I believe you've gone too far. RfA isn't as bad as people make out, and it's reputation is a large part of the problem - so musings like this don't help. Sure there those who believe "you've got to have a thick skin because it'll be worse as an admin", but I believe you should be able to speak to your actions, especially so as an administrator. So, issues about candidates need to be able to be raised. So, yes, I agree, RfA needs to be better - but I'm not sure I agree with your language, let alone all your points. Worm^TT(talk) 18:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your considered answers, Dave. A quick follow-up to the last one if I may: do you not feel that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MB rather exemplifies my criticism of RfA? There were legitimate concerns there and the community was clearly conflicted considering over 250 editors took part and it went to a 'crat chat, but they were expressed in such a way that the candidate left shortly afterwards. Even if we take it as given that the result was "correct", surely that's not the best outcome? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been away a while. What have you done to catch up with changes within the community? How will you re-embed yourself other than serving on ArbCom? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading. A lot. I've caught up on all Admin newsletters, signpost articles and a fair amount of noticeboard posts (VP and Arb mainly) - I have had chats with members of the community who I trust to find out what I should read more about. To re-imbed, I've re-familiarised my self with a little light content work, after I get myself back through all these questions, I will try to join in som community discussions too. Worm^TT(talk) 18:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Neutrality is core to Wikipedia's guiding principles, so non-neutral editing, or any sort of POV pushing (civil or not), is a huge issue that needs to be dealt with firmly. Happily, the community is the best place to handle these sorts of issues, from community members helping to point out where the editing is not neutral and improve the articles using high quality sources, to administrators protecting articles / blocking repeat / egregious offenders. Arbcom is there for the situations that the community can't handle, and they are fewer and further between. So, if the situation is not solvable by the community - possible because of the subject matter, or the individuals in question - that's where Arbcom needs to be able to help out.
What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 03:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hindsight is always 20:20 is the phrase - we work on the information that we have at the time. So, for example, we've come down on the wrong side with regards to editors who fooled us - say Lourdes / Wifione for example, any case where they were involved, I would have handled differently. That doesn't mean everything about the decisions were wrong, but it's hard to say that everything was right, when influenced like that. Any case which required subsequent cases, I'd have to look at the original case and how that happened - often these are based on outside factors, but if the committee did not draw a line under the issue, then the committee could do more.
What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting question Isaacl. I have tried to help find solutions for this in the past (for example, moving to Google Groups, which had much better spam protection) but given that workload is something I haven't solved in my previous terms, I'm not expecting to be the one who solves it now. I will support any changes that do get put forward, I do use workload management software day to day, but the ones I use are proprietary, and we should consider something a little more open source. I am confident there is a software solution to the management, but being a volunteer group, it's the herding cats aspect that needs addressing - and for that, I hope to focus on keeping morale up and helping to keep focus in taht respect.
If a request for another arbitrator's recusal was referred to the Committee (e.g., during a case request), what would be your decision-making process? DanCherek (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're a committee, which means we don't all need to be involved on every case. So we should recuse without concern if needed. Equally, I'm not keen on people "picking and choosing" the arbs they they want to sit on their case, so frivolous requests should be ignored. So, what's my decision making process? If the arbitrator can be reasonably considered involved, if they have a conflict of interests, if they have obvious strong feelings that makes me question whether they can be unbiased in a decision, then I will push for them to recuse. Similarly if it appears to the community that any of these are true - whether or not they actually, are - I would be suggesting they recuse.
When ArbCom posts the result of a private deliberation, it sometimes releases the vote breakdown (listing which arbitrators supported, opposed, or abstained) and other times it doesn't. What standard would you personally apply in terms of considering whether to include that? DanCherek (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. The problem is that when we don't release the vote breakdown, and a single arb releases their vote - suddenly the rest of the committee is put in an awkward position - either release their own vote, or have it effectively revealed by other vote reveals. It's a distraction from whatever the actual issue is in question, something the committee should be willing to stand by as a group. As to your original question - my standard is that if a vote is made for a "decision", then we should reveal the votes. If it's just a straw poll for say, how best to write something, we shouldn't because that's just a committee working together.
There are currently ten active arbitrators out of a possible 15, and arbitrator activity appears to have been the cause of some matters before the Committee stalling – for example, motions in the recent ARBPIA amendment request were only recently enacted almost three months after the initial referral from AE, and it has been noted that an email sent to the Committee in the summer containing private evidence may have fell by the wayside as [an] enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into. As someone who has served on ArbCom, is there anything that you think the community, the committee, and/or the WMF could/should do in order to (either directly or indirectly) improve arbitrator retention, and/or prevent arbitrator burnout? ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, individual arbitrators will go inactive every year. This is due to normal life which has the unfortunate habit of happening. Wikipedia should never come before real life - so, this should not be a concern and that's the reason we have redundancy built in to the size of the committee. The problem comes when the committee is causing the burnout. This can be due to internal or external pressures - and if there is a proximate cause that is creating the issue that means multiple arbitrators are going inactive - then that issue should be identified and addressed. That's not easy to do, but it is something I focus on. Communication is key in this respect, checking in, keeping lines of communication open, being willing to talk about the issue head on - these are all things that can help. We look to have a good mix of experience and enthusiasm coming to the committee, so I am hopeful for the next year.
You were an arb in the past. Which of the decisions you were active in do you think have stood the test of time, and which ones do not? What do you think you've learned from those cases and what would you do differently now if you are elected? Do you have any votes that you have come to regret? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention above, there are situations where, with hindsight, cases would have gone differently. Any perennial case, that we have to deal with the same issue again, is one that hasn't stood the test of time. They certainly exist - I will add more on this soon, because it's quite a big topic - but also I find that I keep answering the second part to your question (repeated below) - so I need to answer that first.
In line with the above, what do you think you've learned from those cases and what would you do differently now if you are elected? Do you have any votes that you have come to regret? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of times I've come down on the wrong side was Portals. I voted against a desysop for BrownHairedGirl, and I was quite vocal about that afterwards, even suggesting I'd nominate her for RFA. However, her subsequent behaviour proved me wrong, and she has subsequently been blocked. I'm not certain if my enablement caused her to spiral, or if my decision was wrong at the time, but it is definitely a place where I put my opinion ahead of that of the committee - and that's something I don't plan on doing in the future. If I cannot persuade a group of editors of my point of view, it can follow that my point of view is wrong.
Looking back, another motion I'm happy to see over the past year was that of Cinderella157's topic ban being looked at. Their behaviour at the case was not acceptable, but their content work was not the issue, so looking back, the topic ban was not the right solution. The issue was with interactions, and so we should have focussed on an interaction ban. It may have been over half a decade ago, but I have tried to keep remedies focussed on the behaviour since.
Was hoping you would answer at your RFA, so that I could vote there. But as that has just closed, I will ask here instead. 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) 10:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I skipped that question first time round as I hadn't made my mind up on it, and when I went back to look, I looked here, not there and couldn't find it. That's not good enough - because it's an important issue and so I'll express my thoughts here on the matter - so, Martinevans123 you have my sincere thanks for taking the time to ask me again.
First off, I am certain that the Wikimedia Foundation gets threats of cases similar to the ANI one all the time and they do a great job of handling those sorts of issues. I am sure, based on my conversations in the past and based on what I know of the individuals who will be dealing with it, that they will be taking these matters very seriously and they do have my confidence. I have massive concerns for the safety of individuals who are at the heart of these matters, in countries that do not have the same sorts of legal protections that we have. Again, I am aware of how much priority the Foundation team members give to such issues, how passionate and clearly dedicated they are to ensuring that safety.
I know that the English Wikipedia community has had problems with the Foundation in the past. I know that certain members of the Foundation have taken steps that were unacceptable, that it has happened multiple times over decades and has lead to a general feeling of distrust towards them. I don't disagree with that, the WMF needs to earn the trust back. They know that.
So - to the open letter. I agree with the sentiment. I fundamentally agree with the key message that the Foundation should prioritize the safety and well being of volunteers, even if it comes with a risk of legal action against the Foundation, or other costs - and for that reason alone, I am minded to sign it and likely will. I believe the rest of the message contains some bluster, some wilful ignorance and I am not sure it's necessarily fair to the Foundation who, in this matter, I do have confidence in - but as I say, I will likely sign.
The RfC though. Going dark. I would have opposed - Going Dark is a world wide incident - it goes beyond our community, and has an effect on the entire English speaking world. It is an important ability that we should use to protest fundamental political issues that will make the world a worse place, that need to be highlighted to the world - it should not be made lightly. If we are ever to use it again, we should include a full campaign to go with it - links to click to register your protest with people who can make change etc. By taking such action in anger, in response to a court case because the judicial system wants to test our editorial architecture - it is the wrong thing to do. Worm^TT(talk) 10:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your answers. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 unreliable? 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) 21:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, antisemitism - as with all bigotry - is abhorrent and needs to be dealt with firmly. Happily, the community is generally pretty good at this, the incidents I have seen over the years have been handled quickly. There have been some unfortunate instances where this is not the case, and this has lead to a number of Arbcom cases in the general topic area of Judaism, Isreal, and their people. Unfortunately, tensions have been high across such topics throughout my lifetime and beyond - culminating in the current war and international hostilities, and those tensions are reflected on Wikipedia - the issues are too big for the community to solve (if we could I would hope we'd be actively solving them outside of Wikipedia) so the have often ended up at Arbcom - for example, the upcoming ARBPIA 5 case.
I do appreciate the background. I appreciate that there are issues. I am, however, concerned by this question, as it is full of rhetoric, and does not seem to accept any possibility of nuance or willingness to see other points of view. I've seen that attitude multiple times during my tenures on the committee, it does nothing to improve collaboration on the encyclopedia, as it appears to start from a point of assuming bad faith. Your contributions this year do nothing to allay my concerns.
So my answer is twofold. Firstly, Antisemitism should be dealt with firmly, agreed. Secondly, you should remember our policies on maintaining a neutral stance - and throwing around accusations without providing evidence will likely get your removed from our community.
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) 05:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Private evidence should not be the norm, and should only be accepted in exceptional circumstances. In those rare cases, if private evidence should be accepted, it should be considered how to allow parties to be able to respond. For example, I've seen cases which focus around a couple of individuals, and the case turned on it's head when we saw the email correspondence between them. It would be wrong to ignore such evidence, but it would be wrong to release it to the community too - it included private information. So finding a way to explain to the community what the evidence was, without breaching that trust of those sent it, is a challenge, but an important one to overcome.
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) 05:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence does refer to a problem I haven't seen on Wikipedia for a few years, since most of the more infamous individuals have since left - so I'll focus on your question without that context. Arbcom does hear cases focussed around individual editors, administrators definitely, but technically can about individuals. I am wary of such cases as there are limited possible outcomes - it's one thing for "remove admin" being an outcome as that's the main way we did it for years - but "ban user" or "restrict user" feels a lot more like a community question than a full arbcom case. I won't say never, but I strugge to think of scenarios it should happen.

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?

Your last arbitration activity was September 2023, at least one year ago, when you halted your last two-year term. How do you think the ArbCom would function without you if you're not elected this time? --George Ho (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up to Q4: To this day, two admins resigned as the result of the recall process: one withdrew the re-RfA, the other just resigned without heading to the re-RfA. How is the recall system still not ready yet? George Ho (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]