Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Daniel

Hi, I'm Daniel, an editor from Australia. I have been on Wikipedia since 2006, and an administrator* since 2008.

I was very active for the first five or so years of being on Wikipedia, and during that time (in addition to being an administrator) assisted in various dispute resolution functions, including as an ArbCom clerk and with the now-defunct Mediation Committee. I was also very involved in content work during this time, and a large part of my time was taken up as an VRT administrator. My life changed in the 2010's and I had a very low level of activity during this decade. I prioritised success in my work and sporting commitments during my 20's, and performed what can charitably be described as a minimal level of Wikipedia activity during this period.

Since 2021, I have returned to higher levels of activity, as I have stepped away from my sporting commitments and work is now at a point that I have spare capacity—both time-wise, but also emotionally and mentally—to invest. This return to being truly active in 2021 came with the inherent danger of being a 'legacy administrator', with all the negative connotations that come with that. In the four years since, I believe I have shown that I am able to still perform this role in tune with the community's expectations, and to a high standard. My recent involvement with the project as an administrator has largely been functional and somewhat behind-the-scenes — especially with article deletion processes (including Deletion Review), as well as community discussions at the relevant noticeboards.

While I do not edit every single day, I tend to read Wikipedia every day. My work commitments sees me travel frequently, which sometimes precludes sitting down and having a proper editing session. However, I generally always find time to read what's going on in the areas I'm involved with. As current arbitrator CaptainEek wrote in a discussion about serving on the Committee,

Thanks in advance for your consideration of my candidacy. I am currently travelling in North America so my apologies in advance if responses to questions are slightly delayed; I will get to them as soon as I can. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I can confirm I have never edited for pay. I confirm I am over the age of 18 (with the dodgy knees to prove that I am in my mid-30's), will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, and have no undeclared alternate accounts (User:DanielBot has been inactive since 2009).

* I am currently not an administrator temporarily, having voluntarily handed in my tools for a short period last month. I did this because I needed a brief break from being an admin, but also as disclosed here my availability until mid-way through January is awful. If successful at this election, I will re-request the tools at WP:BN in late December instead of mid-January as originally planned, so as to facilitate the additional userrights that come with AC membership.

• Daniel (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2024 candidate: Daniel Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Add your questions at the bottom of the page using the following markup:

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

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

Note from Daniel — I'm currently travelling overseas so replies may be slightly delayed, apologies in advance. Also, I'm going to keep responses deliberately short for two reasons; firstly I'm away from home so it's hard to sit down and punch out mini-essays. Secondly, given there's 12 candidates all with lots of questions and answers, information overload is a real risk for those reading answers. If any editor would like me to expand on any answer below, please feel free to flick me a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to elaborate. Cheers, Daniel.

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) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Optimistic - longevity. We're still around! This project has amazing resilience. Reform - have seen things like administrator elections and recall get through recently, which are both (in my opinion) steps in the right direction. It also shows the community is able to continuously improve.
   Pessimistic - partisanship. Reflecting the real world, opposite viewpoints are becoming further apart, and the common ground for respectful and constructive discourse seems to be narrowing. Editor retention - very concerned that not enough is being done to protect content contributors in difficult areas from disruptive actors. Daniel (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   This is easy for me; the most dangerous set of FoF's I've seen was Scottywong. I said as much on the proposed decision talk page. Scotty was in the wrong with his initial conduct, absolutely, but dredging up evidence from 10-12 years ago to justify a decision was below the standards I expect from the Committee. Further, this finding of fact actually has a chilling effect on future participation in Arbitration proceedings and the presentation of evidence, which can't be considered a good thing (surely we want parties engaging, not avoiding, ArbCom proceedings?). Please also see Newyorkbrad and Anomie's comments on the PD talk page for further context. Daniel (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Interesting question. At this stage, no, unless there is an arbitration case about Sydney hailstorms or Australian football (soccer) clubs! More likely is I would need to recuse due to editor conflict rather than a topic area conflict, simply because I don't edit in contentious areas. To give a contemporaneous example, I'd likely have to recuse if this general dispute ended up at RfAR (again) given my close of the ANI omnibus discussion (associated user talk page discussion here). I offered some strident commentary post-close to those who objected to said close, about an issue fundamental to the ongoing dispute (ie. the standing of editors), and this would surely cause at least a perception of being conflicted and therefore recusal would be necessary. It is fair to say I would err on the side of recusing more than less, should I be elected, so as to protect the integrity of the Committee. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. 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) 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Simply put, I think cases need to be extraordinary to be conducted based predominantly or entirely off private evidence — whether that be extraordinary alleged behaviour, extraordinary divisiveness within the community, or extraordinary risk to the project for not taking action. This 'extraordinary' threshold would be higher than the standard threshold to accept a 'normal', public case. In short, the Committee really should have no choice but to take it, if we're taking a private case (as private evidence is something that should be resisted generally). To extend that principle further, everything possible should be made public, whether in full or summarised. I think for a private case, it should be voted on in public at every stage (acceptance at RfAR, proposed decision etc.). Finally, if the private evidence cannot be shared in a form close to completeness with the 'accused' (to use your term) to offer a response, in my opinion it shouldn't be allowed to be relied upon as justification for a decision. Natural justice is incredibly important to me, and I believe these statements reflect this position. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. 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) 23:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 01:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   It took five questions to get asked about Administrator recall, which is three more than where my bet would have been on! Firstly, I support administrator recall as a concept and am proud of the community for getting both this and administrator elections over the line (see answer to Q2 and my comments here). That being said, I've been pretty strident in my commentary around making the recall process as 'fair' and 'humane' for administrators put through it, including challenging the length of time that a recall runs for and the ability for them to provide a structured response (back when the filer had a chance to make a statement at the top of the page). This is the same fairness and humanity-oriented approach I would take to being on ArbCom, and links to my answer to Q4 above.
   I'm sure many people disagree with my views on recall, either dislking the entire recall concept (which I support) or disliking the two proposed alterations (which I think the process needs to be improved), but I hope people can appreciate my views comes from a position of trying to optimise a new process and find the balance between process and people.
   None of this has answered your question though. In short — I don't know right now. Potentially issues may get kicked back to recall to deal with, although maybe they won't? Can being recalled/having a RRfA become a proposed remedy? The only thing I do think will happen with some level of confidence is that I expect that at least some ADMINCOND cases that would have ended up at ArbCom may not any more, as they will be short-circuited by ending up at recall instead. I look at very recent examples such as Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71 as being one that likely wouldn't end up at ArbCom in 2025 on this basis. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Just for an update, the consensus at a VP discussion decided (diff) to no longer label RRFA a "policy". George Ho (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of preliminary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Absolutely not. They need to have an idea that they can apply some sort of remedy that will be effective based on the information presented at the filing at RfAr, otherwise there's no point accepting the case (eg. content disputes should be declined). But, in terms of actual specifics, if a case is accepted it is opened to explore all possible outcomes based on the evidence presented. Where the facts aren't in dispute, for example the recent desysopping of Marine 69-71, motions can provide an efficient solution to a problem that doesn't require the exploration of a whole case. But if you open a case to explore an issue, it should be done with an open mind, and comments to the contrary of this should be avoided by arbitrators at the acceptance stage with their votes to accept/decline (something that hasn't been done particularly well this year.) Daniel (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. Topical and somewhat urgent question: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I offered up an opinion very early in the piece of this issue, see my two comments here and here. I think this is a very dangerous game that WMF are playing, for two reasons — showing that the Foundation are willing to play ball with foreign governments with autocratic executives and/or judiciaries (rather than its previous general position of 'get lost', which has been long-term effective in places like Turkey etc.), but also for editor retention, engagement and trust in the WMF protecting them. I acknowledge this is hardly a revolutionary view to hold, based on the amount of support the open letter has received. Daniel (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your answer, Daniel. Yep, funny old thing this t'inter-webs lark, ain't it. Almost as if national laws are irrelevant. Until suddenly they're not. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. 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? 22:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm going to take you on at "Wikipedians are fond of calling processes things they're not. For example, processes like AfD ... are called discussions and many Wikipedians go to great lengths not to call them votes. They are votes. We expect editors to provide a rationale for their vote (more so at AfD than RfA), but strength of argument rarely trumps numerical superiority" — but it won't be today, I've had a full day of travel. Will get to this over the weekend (Central American time). Daniel (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. 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]

   I don't think ArbCom is equipped to deal with it particularly well given the way it's set up and its mandate to focus on conduct rather than content, except in the most egregious of cases which can be captured in an evidence and workshop phase. However, where it is prevalent within a topic area, ArbCom should absolutely be enabling uninvolved administrators to take action using the contentious topics toolkit. Daniel (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. What have you done to prepare yourself to understand the arbitration committee's workload, and to manage your time to handle it? isaacl (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Former clerk (a long time ago, I concede) so I am roughly aware of the workings of the Committee. As mentioned in my nomination statement, the sort of activity required for an Arbitrator to be effective suits my real-world situation perfectly. Actively edit 3-4 times a week at a minimum, travel a fair bit so can keep track of discussions and emails on my phone remotely. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. Thank you for your answer to Q3, and about erring "on the side of recusing more than less". How about for other arbitrators – 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) 21:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would advocate for my threshold to be applied, but will respect if I am outvoted on that. After all, the Committee decides as a collective. It should be protecting the appearance of impartiality though, and recusing when borderline feels like an 'easy win' in that regards. There are (hopefully) 14 other active Arbitrators who can reach a decision without one who may cast a shadow over an end result. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. 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) 21:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The list of how members voted should always be posted - the current Functionaries appointments kerfuffle is showing that, I want to know who supported and who didn't (rather than having arbitrators come along individually to say). I don't understand what circumstances it would need to be hidden? If there are, it needs to meet the extraordinary threshold mentioned in Q3. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13. In looking at your contributions, I'm seeing some rather large gaps - although the gap from 2015 to 2021 is explained in your candidate statement. But, you didn't edit for 10 months in 2022, and although you did edit a good bit in October, several other months this year, you've not edited much more than 100 edits. What makes you sure you'll have time for the heavy load of ArbCom? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To answer your first question about 2022, I had a work secondment that has subsequently opened the door for my new role. This role (that I've been in since mid-2023) is what is providing me the flexibility and time to edit more reliably. With the second part, there is only one month that is less than 160 edits (July, 116), so "not edited much more than 100 edits [per month]" seems like quite a harsh way to generalise that dataset (179, 192, 168, 166 and 192 are presumably the numbers you are talking about when you say "several other months"). But secondly and most importantly for me, the quality of the edits is far more important. Closing complex DRV's, closing ANI discussions, reading community conversations etc. all take time that isn't reflected in edit count. If a voter wants a machine who pumps out 2,000 edits a month, I am not their candidate. But more specifically, I don't think volume equals value when it comes to being an arbitrator.
    However, if we're crunching the numbers, I believe a more fair stat that better reflects availability is "how many unique days this year have I edited on" - and using UTC days for no other reason than its the easiest arbitrary dataset to review, I have edited on pretty much two-thirds of all unique days this year to the end of October (201 out of 305, or 65.9% of unique UTC days). I have a data dump summary here of the raw data if that helps break it down for you and others, but I am always around, always reading discussions, even if sometimes I can't edit that particular day as easily if I'm away from my desk. (For context as to that number of days edited, I am likely to spend nearly 175 days away from home this year between work and vacation come December 31— so I think I'm doing OK on the edit front count considering that! As mentioned in my nomination statement, I am on emails and on my phone every day and stay up to date with things, even if I've only edit on two-thirds of days this year so far. Daniel (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. You mention involvement in community discussions at the noticeboards - can you give some examples of where you think your involvement has helped resolve conflicts? Or where you aided in resolving a dispute? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I back my ability to a) assess the evidence and community sentiment in front of me to find the right outcomes and b) have the courage of my convinctions to act, which are generally supported by the community. I'm going to link-drop just a couple if I may, happy for you and others to read and ask follow-up questions on any if pertinent:
    * ANI — 'Blocked indefinitely - open to review' (note the edit summary in question has subsequently been revdel'd)
    * ANI — 'Lightburst making poorly disguised personal attacks and hosting WP:POLEMIC content in his userpage' (and subsequent user talk discussion)
    * ANI — 'Ckanopueme: 15 year SPA-ish'
    * ANI — 'FC Internazionale Milano'
    * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel
    * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin
    * Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December & Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November (some random examples)
    Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a followup - have you been involved in discussions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? (I know I could search, but my wiki-search-fu sucks and frankly, I slept badly last night so I'm not up to fighting the bad search functions of wikipedia). If you haven't, not a big deal, just wanted to see examples of actual discussion and back-and-forth in disputes, not just closing of discussions. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Ealdgyth, very minimal to be honest — Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328#Mkstokes was the only one that jumped out in my mind when I cast my memory back. I've definitely commented in and closed a number of arbitration appeals at WP:AN, but not so much at WP:ARE. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15. 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]

    Your question appears to be directly related to an active arbitration proceeding (PIA5), which will open per motion at the end of this month. The Committee explicitly noted this timing will allow the incoming Committee to participate and vote on PIA5. On that basis, I won't be providing any direct comments in response as it will be potentially prejudicial to assessing the evidence presented and subsequently voting on a decision. In more general terms, it is clear that more needs to be done in this whole topic area to protect good-faith editors and resist covert co-ordinated disruption, hence why the Committee has accepted PIA5. This will all (hopefully) be explored in the PIA5 with evidence presented by users, decisions workshopped and eventually voted on by both the outgoing and incoming Committees. Daniel (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. 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) 05:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Robert, I believe my answer to Q4 covers the vast majority of what you're asking, including my general position on private v public. Daniel (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17. 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) 05:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The same standard as other requests — the community is unable to resolve on its own, there is either ongoing disruption or a high chance of it occurring again in the future, and a request is brought to the Committee (likely after multiple noticeboard discussions failed to reach a consensus resolution) asking it to resolve. A long block log in of itself is not a direct cause for concern — the contents within it (ie. length and reason for block, if it was overturned or endorsed at a noticeboard subsequently, if it was a sanction that came reactively from community consensus or was it unilateral, etc.) are far more important. Daniel (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19. 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 (a) they have been WP:INVOLVED with an editor (e.g. editing disputes where the admin and the editor have substantially edited same article(s) using peer-reviewed scholarly sources), and (b) the admin takes administrative action or threatens administrative actions against the same editor on the article's talk page or elsewhere in Wikipedia; or where the admin threatens or scolds or sends 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 where on-wiki and off-wiki evidence establishes that the editor(s) have inserted misinformation or grossly misrepresented peer-reviewed scholarly sources in en-Wikipedia articles to further their off-wiki advocacy, social media campaigns, political causes and such. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Before I answer, a question back — does this relate to this ANI complaint? If yes, a further double-question — have you submitted this to ArbCom (and if 'yes', what was their response); and if 'no', do you plan on submitting it to ArbCom in 2025? Daniel (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. As I found out just now, you recently stepped down from adminship at least one month ago. Also, reading your response to Q1, I can't help thinking. If you become an elected (ex-admin) arbitrator with CheckUser and Oversight tools, how can you contribute to the ArbCom within the next two years? George Ho (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My statement is pretty clear - my unavailability is only until mid-January 2025 ("but also as disclosed here my availability [from late October] until mid-way through January [2025] is awful. If successful at this election, I will re-request the tools at WP:BN in late December instead of mid-January as originally planned"). Assuming I'm elected to a two-year term (a massive assumption but the basis for your question, so we'll run with that timeframe), that is 1.9% of my term I would be unavailable for. If being unavailable for 2% of a two-year term is a deal-breaker for voters, then there's nothing that I can say to them to encourage them to vote for me. But, I'd like to think that being unavailable for two weeks out of 104 shouldn't be a deal-breaker. I will be back to full availability from mid-January 2025. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21. (Follow-up question to Q20:) Besides being unavailable for two weeks, how else would your contributions impact, i.e. make a different to, ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the follow-up question. I believe my personal attributes that are best suited to improving the Committee are: 1) an outside perspective who will gently challenge processes and decisions to ensure that we are doing the right thing and whether something can be improved; 2) real-world experience understanding the strengths and weaknesses of committee functionality, and how to maximise the benefit and cut through the noise of a 15-person body; and 3) a focus on fairness, editor retention and keeping an eye on the 'bigger picture' — and ensuring all decision-making is captured through this lens, rather than becoming short-sighted and reaching an imperfect decision due to losing focus on the core issue(s) that affects the project. Daniel (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Could you link me to some of your edits that deal with highly complex moral or controversial topics (sexual crimes, political repression, colonization history, high profile entertainers and such) and edits on talk pages regarding similar themes in which you acted as an arbitrator?Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]