Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Liz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liz

[edit]

Introduction: I originally edited Wikipedia with the account User:Nwjerseyliz in 2007 but I mainly edited for years with IP accounts. In 2013, I discovered that the username "Liz" was available and have been Liz ever since. I originally worked a lot in the category namespace and on noticeboards but since becoming an administrator in 2015, I've spent my time on administrative tasks, specifically, taking care of stale drafts (CSD G13s), PROD'd articles and closing AFD discussions.

Philosophy: "Your 'if' is the only peacemaker; much virtue in 'if.'" As You Like It, Act 5, scene 4

I think this quote sums up much of my administrator philosophy. Unless there is blatant vandalism going on or content that violates BLP or copyright guidelines, I'm a believer in being open-minded and hearing all sides before coming to a conclusion. This carefulness can cause frustration from other editors who want quick, decisive action to be taken. But instead of slamming down the ban hammer, I like to understand what the situation is. Also, I have a lot of experience closing AFD discussions and determining the consensus from the participants' arguments. I think being thoughtful and deliberate will guide my process in handling arbitration cases if I am elected.

Goals: I served as an arbitration clerk for 2 years and much of my approach towards serving as an Arbitrator is colored by that experience. I prize transparency even though I realize that this is limited due to the private nature of the information that gets sent to the committee. Beyond transparency, my primary goal is to ensure that every legitimate inquiry of the committee gets acknowledged. As a clerk, I heard complaints from editors writing to the committee who didn't know if their message was received. I'd like to make certain that inquiries are responded to, even if a decision can not be rendered at that time.

Conclusion: I know enough about the committee to know that no one editor can come in and change the way it operates. And, in many ways, the committee is functional. But I think, given my experience and temperament, I will be a different kind of arbitrator than typically gets elected and I think the committee could also use the presence of more women.

Disclosure:I have never edited for pay and I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data.

Individual questions

[edit]

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.

  1. Thank you for standing as a candidate. Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to dodge your question but I don't think I feel either optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the project. I do have "concerns" about factors that I think could impact the project.
    • I'm concerned about the use of AI by our newer editors and the randomness of when and how it is detected. I'm not sure how much AI has been discussed at AFC but I think reviewers need the appropriate tools to detect when a draft is machine generated. I'm ambivalent on the use of AI on the project, I can see how tempting it would be to editors who are not proficient in English but the writing itself is bland, almost always unsourced and subpar.
    • I'm concerned about Administrator elections. I think it is great that we have 11 new admins who have the support of the community but, with over 30 candidates to review and consider, I don't see how we could have wide-spread and quality participation in the entire process. There were just an unexpectedly high number of candidates. And I'm concerned that candidates who didn't "win" in this election will not consider having an RFA in the future. They should see this election as a trial run. I think this shouldn't be a "one and done" experiment, it should be assessed and reviewed over the next 5 years. The page states The community will discuss whether and how to proceed with administrator elections. but it's too soon to see how this discussion will happen.
    • I'm concerned about WMF's relationship with Wikipedia, especially that concern which is conveyed in Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. This letter already has almost 800 signatures in just 5 days and I expect that number to grow. I think the disclosure of editor identities is something that needs to be called out before it becomes an ordinary event instead of an extraordinary one.
    • I'm concerned about editor burnout. As a regular closer at AFDs, I'm saddened to see the exodus of some of our regular participants and I know that this is not the only area of the project to see declines. The participation at TFDs and CFDs discussion is so low that sometimes "consensus" becomes the nominator's statement alone. While I applaud the few very knowledgeable editors who keep these forums going, low participation results in consensus that are less reflective of the community at large.
    • I'm concerned that our more-technically minded editors who create the tools we use to help us do our work do not always feel supported by WMF and their engineers and developers. It seems that every time a bot gets turned off, it causes a bit of anxiety over what will take care of these routine tasks for us but luckily we have some amazing editors who step up and try to build replacements, often in very little time.
    • If you look at my Edit Count breakdown, what will stand out is the number of edits I have in User talk space. Many of these edits are CSD notifications but a large share are Welcome messages and Invitations to the Teahouse. I'm heartened that I could probably do this activity full-time as we continue to grow as a community and new editors join the project. The puzzle is how to turn casual editors into experienced ones and that's impossible to predict.
    These are some of my concerns I have when I think about the future of the project and I'm sure over the next two weeks, I'll think of others, hopefully a few more positives to balance out the "concerns".
  2. Please identify a substantive decision of the committee that you disagreed with within the last 3 years, and explain why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over cases from 2022-2024, I see two cases where I might have had a different opinion than the consensus of the committee. In the Small Cat case in the Proposed decision, there was a Proposed Remedy #2.3.4 called "BrownHairedGirl conduct restriction". This remedy had 4 arbitrators in support while 7 were opposed. While acknowledging that the evidence collected against BHG was damning, there were longstanding civility issues and BHG had previously violated editing restrictions, I probably would have argued in favor of this remedy or, at least, tried to conceive of an alternative sanction to an indefinite block. I know that my argument probably wouldn't have resulted in a different outcome but I wish there were more possible intermediate-level sanctions that could be considered between "No sanction" and an "Indefinite block". My opinion is based on BHG being an unofficial mentor to me when I first started editing in 2013 and my admiration for her contributions to the project and, because of this, I likely would have recused myself from participating in this case deliberation. But that's one instance where I disagreed with the committee consensus and that was the question you asked.
    Secondly, in the Conduct in Deletion-related editing case, remedy 4.3.7 a Request for Comment was proposed. An RFC was even set up at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale and the talk page shows that discussions concerning it went on from November 2022 to May 2023. But, in February 2023, the committee rescinded this remedy by Motion. This was due in part from a lack of participation. I am not privy to the committee's discussion about this Motion but I think I would have tried to brainstorm ways to get the community involved here because there are still ongoing problems at AFD with mass nominations and low quality participation that have only worsened as participation in AFD discussions has decreased. I know from my own AFD participation and discussion with other closers and AFD regulars, that this decrease in editor participation, except for "hot topic" article discussions, has been noted since the summer of 2023. This is a discussion that still has to happen and I think this RFC was a lost opportunity. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
    This is the most challenging question posed to me so far. First, I'm not sure what the standard should be because I don't know what the current standard is right now, so it's hard to evaluate what aspects I would propose changes to or accept as appropriate. The existing standard could be more transparent to the community, I think, without any harm to any individual. But it very might be that ARBCOM decides whether to take a case based on private evidence on a case-by-case basis and has no "standard" to judge this which I find disconcerting.
    I think it should be possible to have a case based on private evidence especially when it involves harrassment but it does pose a thorny question on how to divulge information to the accused in order to allow them to defend themselves. I think I'm more concerned about the fairness of this process than how much of the prodeedings to reveal to the community. The Arbitration Committee often keeps information from the community, much to their frustration, so that is nothing new. But the accused needs to know what the accusations are in order to offer their own explanations or defend themselves. I don't see how it is possible to provide details about misconduct allegations without it being obvious about the identity of the filer so perhaps the accused could be asked to keep such information private which would require their agreement and cooperation. I don't think we can take that reaction as a given.
    So, to shorten what could be a long, exploration into the nature of privacy and arbitration deliberations (I can be very wordy), I'd have to say that I don't have an easy-to-sum up solution to the problem that you are validly pointing out and, if elected, I'd need to see how these cases are handled before advocating changes. But you have put your finger on a sensitive question which needs to be spelled out better by the committee to the community and I hope you will continue to pursue transparency here no matter who is elected.
  4. 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) 23:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think a recall process for administrators is overdue, I think the current system needs to be refined, with the comment and voting portion shortened to the length of a standard RFA. 30 days is too long to keep an administrator who is the subject waiting to see how the recall will be concluded. If it takes a week to determine if an editor is suitable to be an admin, it should take a similar amount of time to determine whether they no longer have the trust of the community or, at least, of the editors who choose to take part in the process.
    I think a functional recall process will lower the number of cases that the committee is asked to review about administrator fitness. I think that arbitration cases should still be an option, especially if there are large amounts of evidence that need to be submitted and reviewed. The recall process, as it exists, is less adaptable to hear evidence from multiple editors and even if changes are made to it, it would not be a suitable avenue for that process to occur. So, I think Administrator recall will reduce the number of cases focused on administrator conduct that the committee is asked to consider but the arbitration option should continue to exist for more complicated cases that might involve multiple parties.
    Just for an update, the consensus at a VP discussion decided (diff) to no longer label RRFA a "policy". George Ho (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Being on the committee requires a lot of time and presence and an enormous dedication. This would mean a radical restructuring and change in focus of the huge amount of essential admin work you already do. If you are accorded a seat, how do you plan to reorganise your time? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right, Kudpung and thinking about this was part of the reason that I didn't submit my candidate application sooner in the process. I'm at a stage in my life where I have a fair amount of free time and I have spent much of it with my daily admin editing routine of tasks. And I find a lot of satisfaction from the work that I do right now.
    Even though I was an arbitration clerk for two years, the pace and workload of the committee members on a daily basis is unclear to me and I think it's also unknown to everyone who hasn't served on the committee. So, it's hard to know how much it will impact the editing work I do on the project. I'll obviously have to cut back but I'm less concerned about this change than I was a few months ago. In the spring and summer of this year, we had very few admin closers for AFDs but recently we've had a number of new and returning administrators coming to help out with AFDs so I have stepped away from closing so many of those. We also have more admins helping out with reviewing PRODs so I'm not worried about that area. My other main activity is reviewing stale drafts, CSD G13s, which takes a fair amount of time every day but I think it would be fairly easy to explain this process to one of our newly minted admins. So, while it will be hard for me, personally, to give up some of my daily habits, I have confidence that we have able and competent admins who can pick up the slack. I also think it is good for the project to not have any editor or admin who has "jurisdiction" over any one area of the encyclopedia. It's healthier for the project and its editors to have redundancy and have multiple administrators who can and do handle any particular task. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your answer Liz. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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? 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only pick one? Several musings brought up reactions from me, both positive and negative but we can leave those to any follow-up questions.
    The one I'll select to reply to here is in the "On articles, deletion, etc" section and that is I believe Wikipedia would better serve its readers better with a smaller number of more detailed articles with a broader scope than with many thousands of short articles on (for example) individual athletes or species. While I understand your point, Wikipedia is dependent on our content creators who are volunteers and they have their own subjects of interest and knowledge. So, we are richer in areas where we have editors who have expertise in an area whether that is railway lines, German tanks, species of toads in South America, songs of the 1960s or turn of the 20th century vaudeville performers in the UK. Who becomes a content creator and what their focus is lies beyond anyone's control.
    For example, I think that the subject area of sociology is really substandard on Wikipedia. We don't have enough articles and many of our articles introducing basic concepts are not well-developed because it is more challenging to write a well-referenced article with a "broader scope" that is not overly long about an abstract concept than it is to write an article about characters in a popular TV series. But until we get more experienced and capable editors who want to take on this area as a project to work on, it will remain in a poor state. Our editors and their areas of interest is not equally distributed or proportional to the importance of the topic. So, while it might be an interesting thought experiment to consider the Wikipedia we think should exist, we are lucky to have well-referenced and well-written articles that we do have whether or not they are on "important" subjects or on topics that have a narrow interest. The composition of Wikipedia reflects the interests of our editors over 23 years, for better or worse.
    An aside:I wouldn't have pegged you as a Swiftie! Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
    Well, the essay you link to, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, is a pointed critique of how ARBCOM has neglected to address this POV pushing behavior. I agree with some of the points it makes. But, generally, the Arbitration Committee responds to case requests that are brought to its attention or evidence that is sent to them through email, it doesn't go out and investigate matters without an initiative like these and these are complaints that have typically gone through prior attempted levels of resolution before arriving at arbitration. But I think POV pushing is and has been an element of discussion when brought up in formal arbitration cases, especially through the evidence phase of a case. But the committee isn't a police force than can monitor noticeboards and lay down sanctions when complaints are brought to ANI or NPOVN. POV pushing is definitely one form of misconduct that can be considered in arbitration proceedings but its sphere of influence on the project is intentionally restricted to the realm of arbitration cases and private communication. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Pinguinn, thank you for your question but I think I answered this already in Question #2. If you have a different but follow-up question you'd like to ask about a specific case, I'd be happy to address it. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have decided that since you phrased the question differently than Question #2, I should supply an answer to it. I think if I was an arbitrator years ago, I would have handled Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS differently than the final consensus of the committee. This case was hampered by the lack of participation of RexxS in this case so while there was an opportunity to hear his defense against the valid accusations that were made, unfortunately, he didn't take advantage of it. But I don't think I would have cast a vote to desysop him.
    The evidence was unquestionably solid that there were instances of incivility and misuse of tools (or the threat of their misuse) but I believe that RexxS had also been a responsible administrator in general. I think an editing restriction or topic ban from the areas of COVID19 or, even broader, MEDRS for a year and an admonishment might have been more appropriate since these were the general subject areas where many of the problems occurred. I don't think any administrator gets a pass from ADMINACCT and some of his conduct was unacceptable. It's just unfortunate that he chose to withdraw from the proceedings and not be responsive to complaints because, ultimately, I think that influenced the committee's decision to desysop him. But I would have supported an alternative sanction in this case. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, isaacl, this is a difficult quesion to answer given that I've never been on the committee before so I don't have a view behind the scenes to see how large the workload is or how it is currently managed. I think the arbitration clerks are essential to the committee functioning efficiently so a concern of mine would always be to have a full roster of active clerks able to assist the committee with their work.
    As I said in my candidate statement, when I was a clerk and now working as an administrator, I frequently heard complaints from editors, active and blocked ones, who stated that they written email messages and sometimes follow-up emails but stated that they hadn't received any response or, at least, not a timely one, from the committee. I think that while arbitration cases get the lion's share of attention from editors, correspondence via email remains largely hidden but can be a sizeable element of the committee's workload and if I could help out with one aspect of their workload, it would be to ensure that editors sending messages received a timely receipt that, yes, their message had been received and an estimated time when they could expect a fuller response from the committe. I understand that this estimate may be difficult to approximate but I don't think editors writing to the committee should be faced with silence or months of waiting to hear back. Again, I don't know what email system is in place right now but I'd like to see some form of structured email response or maybe even have one arbitrator designated the Traffic Manager to ensure that no email requests get lost or forgotten in the committee's Inbox. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your response within the bounds of your experience. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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) 21:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume these discussions, should they happen, are done privately, off-wiki, through email until some sort of consensus is reached. If there is a general agreement that recusal is appropriate and the arbitrator disagrees, I assume that these decisions are handled through persuasion, not any kind of committee enforcement. At least, in the past when I have seen clerks and arbitrators recuse themselves, it has appeared to me to be voluntary. I'm not aware of a case where the committee demanded an arbitrator recuse themselves but, as you know, much of the committee's business is done privately. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 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) 21:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support transparency unless there is a pressing need for privacy to be honored. An example I can think of is during the Gamergate incident back in 2014-2015, I was doxxed for comments I made on social media and I think if a case or request for a motion with a similar highly public profile is taken, the committee might chose just revealing outcomes in order to avoid harrassment of committee members. But I think those occasions are rare and, in general, transparency should be the road taken most often. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I apologize for overestimating your knowledge of the arbitration committee workload based on your clerk experience. I'll ask the question I asked other candidates who were not arbitrators previously (though I appreciate your answer to question 5 covers part of it): What have you done to prepare yourself to understand the arbitration committee's workload, and to manage your time to handle it? isaacl (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    isaacl, the work of a clerk is, if I remember rightly, about setting up case pages once a case request has been accepted by the committee and posting a lot of notifications on the user talk pages of involved parties during the course of an open case and then, after it closes. We follow instructions from the committee members and I remember there were a ton of different templates we used to set up cases and post notices. We were sometimes asked to monitor case talk pages in case there were inappropriate comments, check to make sure that statements stayed within the word limits and we also reviewed new candidates who wanted to become clerks. But normally, communication went one-way, the committee told us what was needed and we carried out their requests. So, there was no peak into what the committee's deliberations and correspondence were composed of.
    That's just background to situate my understanding of the committee from the stance of a former arbitration clerk. I haven't done a great deal to prepare for this change of status if I am elected. To answer some questions on this page, I reviewed some recent cases handled by the committee but when I was a clerk, I spent a fair amount of time reading up on older cases so I think I have a good foundational knowledge of the committee's history. The workload of the committee has changed a lot since when it was first established and fewer cases are accepted than in the past. As for the second part of your question, I'll refer you to the question asked by Kudpung, #5 where I go into the time management question and how my editing routine will change if I am put on the committee. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I have always respected the work you do, especially in coordination with DumbBOT. You have very high activity/edits/deletions. Do you think joining ArbCom might impact/decrease your usual activity? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, kiran, thank you for the compliment! Regarding DumbBOT, I'm guessing that you are referring to Proposed deletions. Right now, we have 4 admins who review PROD'd articles and files which is sufficient number to cover the area. But I think if we lost a few admins in this area of the project, we could get more help if we just put out a call on WP:AN, that usually works at least for a temporary boost in admin help.
    As for my current workload, I think I addressed this in Kudpung's Question #5. But just to address your inquiry here, yes, being on the committee will naturally decrease the amount of time I have for my regular routine of editing and admin tasks which mostly involve page deletions and AFD closures. But aside from stale drafts, CSD G13s, I think we have plenty of coverage with PRODs and AFDs to pick up whatever activity I have to step back from. And we have 11 new admins with enthusiasm so I'm positive that none of the areas I work in will "fall behind". The biggest change won't be to the encyclopedia but to me personally...over the past 4 years I have set up a daily routine of tasks I do throughout the day and that routine will need to change. And since most people are creatures of habit, that will be an adjustment for me. But I think change can also be transformative and no area of the project should be "owned" by one or two editors or admins, it's not healthy for our content creation, for our editors, for other admins or for Wikipedia. There always should be multiple admins who can cover a particular task, call it admin redundacy. This also serves to decrease editor or admin burnout. I considered the impact of being appointed to the committee before submitting my candidate's statement and, yeah, as much as I love the work I do, I posted it any way! Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 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. (this question is from User:Martinevans123 Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    I thought this answer would be an immediate and short, "Me, too!" But since I've only been lightly following this crisis, I had to do a lot of reading on WMF privacy and transparency policies before responding.
    • While I agree with the sentiments of the letter, the outrage being expressed at Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation has me second-guessing my participation. Speculation, sometimes fueled by brand new accounts who have never edited an article, is running rampant. Jimmy Wales and folks from the WMF occasionally drop into a discussion and repeatedly say "But nothing has happened yet! Stay calm for now." and their claims are dismissed because they are in conflict with sources people find through Google, some of which seem not particularly reliable.
    • As for the RFC, I haven't read ALL of those comments (and I don't have a full day to read them all) but my question would be with the mechanics of this proposal. Should an RFC that ran for 2 days determine whether or not this high profile website is "blacked out" to all of our global readership? Do the viewpoints of participating editors in an RFC reflect that of our editor community? And, how exactly would a blackout function? Why would the WMF staff members, who could actually make a blackout happen, follow guidance from an RFC on the English Wikipedia? It's not like there is a big red button that an admin or arbitrator can push to cause a blackout to happen. For a blackout to happen, there needs to be communication between the English Wikipedia and WMF and most of the comments I read about the WMF on these pages come from a place of doubt and mistrust which I think would not aid our project in obtaining any cooperation from the tech crew at WikiMedia.
    • Finally, I read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-11-06/In focus and, way at the bottom of the article, under "What is the most negative thing that Wikimedians in India have said about this case?" is a paragraph expressing that our editing community in India might have a very different view of this incident than our editors in Western countries. The fact that some of our Indian editors might support complying with the court order puts a complicated spin on this case. I think their opinions are just as valid as those of editors from the U.S. or other industrialized countries.
    • So, what I'm left with is that the Open Letter is fine but regarding all of the other suggestions being floated, it seems like there is a lot of agitation when we are operating in an environment of knowing very little of what is actually happening between WMF legal counsel and the courts in India. Signing a petition of support for the WMF taking a hard stance on not revealing editor information is laudable but some of the other proposals being suggested are an overreaction and should be tabled until there is actual confirmation, from a very reliable source, not a blog, that there has been some movement in this case. Until then, I just see a lot of speculation and outrage being expressed based on very little information. I understand that anonymity on the Internet strikes home for many of us but this is not the best climate to make decisions that could impact the situation. And there is still the unasked question on whether our editing community has any influence over this situation at all, which, I believe, is questionable.
    And that is my very long answer to what seemed like a simple question. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for your very thorough and thoughtful answer. I'll even sign my comment here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm not sure if I'm doing this properly (as it is my first time participating in one of these forums). However, I am curious if you feel that certain articles on Wikipedia have political bias. I would also like to know if you have any solutions to combat NPOV violations on the website. Thank you, Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you doing so properly, Microplastic Consumer, so congratulations!
    Because I haven't read all of the articles on Wikipedia, which is getting close to 7 million now, I can't say for certain that there are no articles on the project which contain a political bias. It's likely there are some out there which have yet to be discovered. Luckily, we have our WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN noticeboards where questions about POV in articles and the quality of sources can be discussed.
    But I think it's an ongoing problem to combat POV on this project because, as the NPOV policy page states, Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. So, all editors come to the project with their own biases that they have to learn to keep in check when editing, especially in controversial subjects. I think adopting a more neutral stance when contributing to articles is an acquired skill and it is typically newer editors who both complain that there is bias present on the project and who can lean into POV writing habits. So, POV problems are partially an issue of editor education. If I was to grade this project, I'd say our efforts to educate problematic editors, rather than bringing them to ANI are okay, I'd rate it as a B-. Some editors are better than others at spending time trying to correct bad habits. We have to do better at this and start considering editor education as an investment into future editing, not as POV policing. A good start is to write personal messages on subjects like this rather than relying only on templates. But this is a subject that I can go on about at length and is veering away from your initial question so I'll stop myself here. I hope I addressed your concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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 in certain areas? Will you acknowledge that the encyclopaedia needs to take much firmer action on antisemitism issues at ArbCom level and has been in denial of its scale thus far? Luxofluxo (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that by "the current antisemitism scandal" that involves Wikipedia you are referring to the online story making claims that there is off-wiki coordination in editing certain Wikipedia articles, is that right? Right now, a case request to look into these claims has been put forward at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area and is being considered so that is one way that ARBCOM can look into charges like this.
    As to the more general comment about antisemitism on the project, I do think that this is a problem but I wouldn't call it widespread. But it does occasionally appear in complaints brought to WP:ANI where the offending editors are generally indefinitely blocked very quickly. But Wikipedia, like any social institution, especially one that exists online, is subject to participation by bad faith actors who bring all sorts of bias with them against certain religions, ethnicities, nationalities, races, genders, gender orientation and gender identity, I think we've seen it all and I think I can confidently claim that there is a zero tolerance for discriminatory statements to fellow editors or POV pushing in editing articles when it is brought to the attention of the community. If you are arguing that ARBCOM has been "in denial of its scale", I'd like more specifics of where you have seen this because nothing is coming to my mind of where this has occurred. Thank you for your question, I think it's an ongoing struggle to maintain our article's integrity and our editors safe. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: It looks like the case request I mentioned above has been declined by the committee but according to a message on the ARBCOM noticeboard, (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles), a new case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 will be opening on November 30th to examine the dynamics of the current situation involving PIA articles and some involved editors on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 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) 06:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Robert. Thank you for your questions. I believe I addressed the issue of private evidence in Question #3 (above).
    Additionally, reading over the recently declined PIA case request again yesterday, I saw several ideas suggested in the statements made by editors that I think might be considered. The most promising is to for the filing editor to post a case request, say that the case is dependent, in large part, on private evidence and just have this be an announcement. Statements from other editors would not help resolve whether or not the committee should accept or decline the case since no one but the committee and the filing party has access to this evidence. But editors on the project would be informed that there was an open case that the committee was considering, know what the subject was and what other parties might be involved. And that would be all that was allowed to be posted so that there wouldn't be the inappropriate speculation that occurred at times with this recent case request. Then, after the committee decided whether or not to accept the case, it would either be opened, if there was also public evidence to be considered, or the case resolution would be announced if it was not possible to hold a case in public. That is not transparent but this seems to be a development that has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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) 06:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is valid for the arbitration committee to accept cases focused on a specific editor, on a group of editors or on a subject area if this issue has come before the community before and a resolution has not been found. The determination of whether or not to accept a case would be determined in large part of the previous discussions that have been held about this subject along with preliminary statements from members of the community on whether they believe that the situation is not resolvable except through an arbitration case or, perhaps, just a motion. I've seen several declined case requests that resulted because a subject was still being discussed in an ANI complaint and it was not clear yet that the community could not find a resolution so the case request was premature. I should add that what I outlined is the current process for arbitration cases and I'm not proposing anything different from the status quo. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. (With respect to Q14) Apologies if this is not the right place for this, but it's also the highest profile place to point this out. Liz, I will note that the "In focus" section says "What is the most negative thing" not "What is the consensus view". I'd be wary of extrapolating from that specific section as it will lead to false conclusions about what the Indian editing community wants.
    But to make this a proper question as well, What do you think Enwiki's Arbcom can do to help here? I believe there's a thing that can be done, just not what precisely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soni (talk • contribs) 05:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. ARBCOM serves a unique role in proceedings that desysop an admin, that sanction or reinstate editing privileges of an editor when on-wiki and/or off-wiki evidence is compelling. Two questions: [1] what factors will you consider in deciding to desysop an admin when evidence shows that they have been WP:INVOLVED with an editor, yet have taken admin action against that editor or have threatened or scolded or sent hostile messages to that editor off-wiki through email or other forms of private messaging; [2] what factors will you consider in deciding to discipline editor (or a cabal of editors) with WP:COI who insert misinformation or who grossly misrepresent peer-reviewed scholarly sources in en-Wikipedia articles to further their off-wiki advocacy, social media campaigns, political causes and such. Particularly when there is compelling evidence that this behavior is by an editor who has long standing, off-wiki friendship with one or more admin(s). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:ARBPIA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

  1. 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?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Candidates/Liz&oldid=1256878584"