Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Just Step Sideways/Questions

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2024 candidate: Just Step Sideways 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=}}

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. I'm sure you're expecting this one. Can you explain to me, the average editor who has no idea of all the secret ArbCom business, why I should trust you not to make the same mistakes again? To be clear, I have read your statement. Toadspike [Talk] 00:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course I absolutely did expect it and I'm glad to try and get it out of the way with the first question. It was and is my contention that the "previous warning" I recieved had almost nothing to do with the issues that led to my suspension. Its status as a warning has since been downgraded by motion to "was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal." So, I believed that, while some of the other arbs didn't like what I was doing, it wasn't a huge deal. In November of last year it suddenly was a very huge deal to the point that I was being thrown out.
   Now, here's the thing: for me, it doesn't matter if I agree with what the committee and the ombuds have said was crossing the line. There are any number of non-arbitration-related policies I don't agree with, but I don't go around breaking them either. I can respect and follow a rule even if I don't care for it.Now that where the line is has been made clear, an absolute code of silence that forbids even mentioning the very existence of a conversation on the mailing list unless it is cleared with the entire committee first, I will follow that and expect the rest of the committee to do the same. My personal belief is that the committee erred in setting the bar quite so high, and they should have left the matter to this year's committee to clarify instead of suspending me, but that's not what happened. I also believe that for at least some arbs,it wasn't about what I said but where I said it, which should not be a factor but almost certainly was.
   
   I'd add, just for clarity, that I have never released anything that even comes close to personal information such as one routinely sees when using oversight or checkuser permisssions, and I never will. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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]

   First off, good question Kevin. I think I was an effective arb. For whatever reaon I actually do care, on more than one occasion I tried to take a break and felt compelled to end it because there was an issue before the committee that I felt needed immediate attention. I think I maybe also convinced some arbs that we needed to stop doing "bespoke" sanctions as I firmly believe they cause more problems than they solve. I don't know that I have a lot of total failures. The committee doesn't always do what it should, but if I at least tried to make it do so. I can feel good about that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. 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]

   There are some new user tools that actually work.The reply tool has caught on like nothing I've ever seen in all my years on this project. Whatever the thing is that makes edit summaries into section links is amazing, I only just really understood how to use it. The AFD closer tool is the best thing to ever happen to AFD. In short, getting some things done has gotten way easier. If only there were tools that made being an arb easy.
   
   On the minus side, I think we have rather too many rules, and too many users who insist on blind obedience to them. At a certain point it becomes impossible to even know them all, let alone follow them all.I also think there is a cutural issue where WP:IAR is fading away in favor you must follow ze rules. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Your ARCA request for clarification regarding your suspension shows the need for clear communication. Could you clarify the scope of your promise to respect confidentiality? Does "Nothing from the arbcom mailing list will ever be reposted by me" apply only to the arbcom mailing list? I'd expect the same reassurance in regard to every forum to which you have access by virtue of holding advanced tools. Cabayi (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   My suspension was entirely about leaking non-specific, non-personal information from the arbcom mailing list, and nothing else. I've never even been accused of leaking anything else. It didn't occur to me to promise not to do things I've never done to begin with. I've recently put down my thoughts about this distinction here if anyone would like to see more. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   ArbCom's mailing list was not the only mailing list you were subscribed to which had access to that information. It was on the functionaries list also. Confining your obligations to preserve the privacy of communications to just one forum seems a missed opportunity to reassure the community.Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Please refer to the essay I linked in my reply, along with my answer to Q1, which thoroughly adresses this distinction. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Accountability to the community is good, but as a group action rather than an individual action. It's the Wikipedia community that elected you to ArbCom. You divulged info to the Wikipediocracy community. To which community do you see yourself as accountable? Cabayi (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   This feels like a loaded question. I don't answer loaded questions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   It was intended to give you the opportunity to distance yourself from a forum which has recently started a campaign to dox arbitrators, but thanks for the answer anyway. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a gross mischacterization of what is going on there, one person saying they might do something and being yelled at for it by multiple other people is not "a campaign." And I reject the premise that one must "choose a side". One can be a critic and still disagree with other critics. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Excluding the sharing of information itself, and just concerning your steps after that: is there anything you would have done differently? Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   An interesting question. So, one post set all this off, although several arbs have since commented that that particular post wasn't really that bad. I got an amail expressing their distress at seeing it. I therefore asked the WPO mods to please delete the post, which they did. As far as I know it remains hidden to this day thanks to them, I think next to nobody even saw it. The committee must have been keeping a really sharp eye on WPO for them to have seen it and gotten their ducks in a row to email me about it so quickly.
   The next thing I knew I was told there was a "totality of evidence" and that I had been explicitly issued a formal warning not to do what I had been doing, and therefore they were discussing removal from the committee. I responded to their totality of evidence point-by-point, although I suspect what some arbs were hoping I would just resign, I didn't feel the need to make this easy for them. One thing I had discovered was that the committee has historically relied too much on pressuring arbs to resign in order to keep this sort oif thing from becoming public. There's a few skeletons in that closet and I didn't want to be one of them.
   The very next day they had somehow negotiated amongst themselves the odd compromise that I was to be suspended for six months but not ejected from the committee, and had enacted that decision, along with the suspension of my functionary permissions, which are somehow still suspended even after the six months were up. I've personally never heard of a timed sanction that continues to be in effect after the period of time has ended, but that somehow makes sense to the current committee as well, apparently. So, no, actually, I would do all those things again. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. 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) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't know that there is a "topic area" in the content sense of the word, that I would need to recuse from. My content work is very generalized and I don't enjoy editing in highly contentious areas.
   However I have in the past recused from entire cases or abstained from voting on particular findings or remedies where I had history, good or bad, with the user whose conduct was under examination, even when I knew I could be impartial. The standard that I have followed and would expect others to follow is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. 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) 19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   This is clearly an issue that needs some clarification, and if elected, and even if not, I will endeavor to get the committee to do so. "Secret" evidence is usually not secret at all, it is usually entirely public, but on some other website, and the outing policy hamstrings what can and cannot be publicly posted on-wiki. That is a matter the community may want to addrss as the committee can't modify policy.
   As to when the committee should accept a case, if there is a case request based entirely on private evence, it should be handled privately, although some sort of tactful public notice that the case is underway may be in order. It does appear that in the still-pending case request, the committee dropped the ball by not adequetly replying when the evidence was first sent to them several months ago, That is an ongoing issue with the committee, but one that seems to be more acute this past year. If someone sends private evidence, that should be treated as a de facto request for a private case. The submitting user should get a yes-or-no answer as they eventually do with an on-wiki case request.
   In this past year we saw a hybrid case where some evidence was public and some was not, and I would imagine that is possible more often than not and probably a good model to follow. The committee often has to weigh the individual right to privacy, which on Wikipedia, extends far further than most other websites, and the right of the broader community to know about things like canvassing and harassment. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. 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) 23:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   A functioning recall process might reduce the number of admin conduct cases brought before the committee, although it will probably always remain an option to got the route of a full case. The committee takes very few cases these days so there isn't a pressing need to lighten the load on that front, and the slow pace of a full case gives the parties time to really consider what is best.
   The committee also recently demonstrated that in more obvious cases it can speedily resolve admin conduct issues by motion, something I have been a proponent of for a long time and was happy to see put into practice. It resolved a painfully unfortunate situation much quicker than either recall or a full case would have, that's a good thing.
   The idea for recall was sold as being more lightwieght and less drama than taking an admin to ArbCom. So far it seems like the opposite. I'm hopeful that the current "reworkshop" will fix some of those glaring issues. Otherwise we would be stuck with an alternative process that, frankly, seems terrible so far. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:35, 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) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. 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) 09:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When the committee accepts a case, that is an indication that the preliminary statements have made a compelling argument that there is a problem that needs looking into, and nothing more. Cases often take unexpected turns, for example the one that has just been closed was expected to be an examination of behabvior a broad topic area, and it turned out to that it stayed focussed on a single article.
    ArbCom exists to stop disruption, not to punish, and while one cannot help having a rough idea of what may be the result, arbs should always keep an open mind and remember that the every name on the screen represents a real person. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11. At first sight it might seem as if this is a repeat of the question above, but taking note of your quip in your answer to Q3:you must follow ze rules, there are indeed jurisdictions where this is rigorously applied and where it is impossible to avoid a penalty for even the most innocent and minor breaches of an often silly law. Hence when hearing a case do you believe that before pronouncing its verdict, sentence, or acquittal, the committee should examine the evidence more deeply, or simply take the filing accuser's and the pile on claims of evidence at face-value and impose the maximum sanction/punishment? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned in that same answer above I do feel the project, as it has grown, has lost some of the spirit that defined its earlier days. That's not entirely a bad thing, a lot of dumb stuff happened back in the "cowboy admin" days, but I am disheartened by the seeming tendency to see comments that reflect a "rules are rules and that's it" attitude.
    Of course, once a matter reaches the committee it is rarely the result of a single action but rather an ongoing problem that the community has tried and failed to resolve. Evidence doesn't lie, but it can be misrepresented or misinterpreted and in my experience the committee routinely simply ignores evidence submissions that don't actually show any wrongdoing. Perhaps ignoring it is not enough though, arbitrators are perfectly free to call out bad or misrepresented evidence as being just that. There are sometimes cases where two or more editors clearly despise one another and may resort to dirty tricks to try and make a point and the committee should always be cognizant of that.
    As to maximum punishment, I don't think that is generally the committee's goal. When a users' conduct is brought before the committee, it isn't because they are someone here entirely in bad faith, we just block people like that and move on. So we know going in that every party to a case was, at least at some point, genuinely here trying to improve the encyclopedia (with rare exceptions). So it's not exactly fun to have to tell them they have failed to do that and the committee quite often goes for the type of sanction that is intended to stop the disruptive behavior while keeping the otherwise good-faith editor i.e. topic bans or interaction bans. Sometimes that isn't an option, and a user has truly lost their way and a site ban is the only remaining solution, but it should never be the only option considered. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your answer, Beeb. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. 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've been vaguely watching the general issue, but I will preface my comments by saying I don't really see what this has to do with the arbitration committee.
    I certainly do not like the idea that the foundation would "out" users, but at the same time I feel like there's a lot of second guessing what the lawyers are up to. Things aren't always what they appear to be on the surface and the foundation isn't going to publicly share its legal strategy. It is also worth noting that the foundation doesn't actually know the real life identities of anyone who isn't already disclosing that information, so it's entirely possible all the court is going to get is a stale list of shared ip adresses, making the disclosure essentially meaningless. In short, I don't believe we have enough information to be sure we actually know what is going on.
    I don't support the blackout proposal. Blacking out the entirety of en.wp for several days won't do anything besides irritating the heck out of the millions of people who rely on the site and don't know or care about a court case in India. We are here to create and maintian an encyclopedia, and I don't see how shutting down the entire site helps anyone. The open letter is on track to hit nine hundred signatures in the near future, I think that is a suffiently clear statement that this deeply concerns large numbers of Wikipedians. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I quite agree that it's not much about ArbCom, and more about you as an editor and Wikipedian. Many thanks for your thoughtful and illuminating answers. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13. 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? 21:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I didn't see much there that I totally disagree with besidesEditors (or small groups) who successfully research, write, and nominate a featured article should be allowed a by-line if they want it.
    That's just not the deal you made when you signed up. If anyone is curious who wrote a particualr article, the history tab is right there. This also begs the question of future edits, when do they get their byline? Does the original author get sole credit forever no matter what?
    Plenty of heavy content contributors maintain a "trophy rack" on their user page and I think that's just fine, there's nothing wrong with being proud of the results of your hard work. Appending their name to an actual article text is something else. If you want that, go edit some site that allows a single user to maintain total control of an article. They do exist. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14. In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When such matters are brought before the committee it has an obligation to recognize disruptive behavior of any kind for what it is and take appropriate action to stop it. In cases of POV pushing that could involve a topic ban from the subject area in question or a WP:CTOP designation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15. What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally, I often advocated in the past that any admin that needs to be subject to an ArbCom-level editing restriction is manifestly unfit to be an admin, but getting other arbs to see it that way has been an uphill battle.
    I also think more admin conduct cases can and should be handled by motion, if you're looking for specifics the most glaring example is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder.Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16. What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So, all arbs are equal, no one of them has any more say than the others, and that is as it should be, I don't think the committee needs a chairperson or whatever, but it has occured to me that it could use a coordinator. No special authority. just someone who keeps things on track and reminds other arbs of things that need doing that aren't being paid enough attantion. There is often one arb already sort of doing this unofficially, but maybe it is time to make it an actual position.
    
    I also think there is an issue with arbs being marked active but not actively particpating in on-wiki committee business, and this has led to case requests and other situations that require a vote to languish far longer than they should. Committee procedures already state that an arb is considered inactive if they do not participate in committee business for seven days, but this is rarely put into practice. I'd go one further and say that if an arbitrator does not vote on an open matter for seven days, they should be considered inactive or abstaining from that matter regardless of whether they are active in other matters. Perhaps the procedures can be changed to reflect this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17. 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) 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Things should only be kept private when there is a compelling reason to do so. So, checkuser data,suppressed edits, links to user's other online accounts or real names, those are all things covered by policy that must be kept private. The committee doesn't have a choice in that.
    How arbitrators voted in a case based on that sort of material is not something they are obligated to keep private, so if they are doing so it is by choice. I can't really think of any reason to make that choice. If you're ashamed of the way you voted, that's a good indicator that you shouldn't have voted that way

18. In response to your above answer:several arbs have since commented that that particular post wasn't really that bad. I got an amail expressing their distress at seeing it. I therefore asked the WPO mods to please delete the post, which they did. As far as I know it remains hidden to this day thanks to them, I think next to nobody even saw it. I feel as though some of the questions you're getting are "in the know" with respect to what you posted to WPO, and the rest of us have simply no idea what you posted or any concept of how much of a "leak" it was or wasn't. I am reassured by statements likefor clarity, that I have never released anything that even comes close to personal information such as one routinely sees when using oversight or checkuser permisssions. Forforbids even mentioning the very existence of a conversation on the mailing list, can you clarify just in general for us that aren't privy, what is the general category of what you posted that caused all this drama? Was it truly something like "on the ArbCom mailing list, we are discussing X"? I see the statement that it wasnot direct quotes but rather general information but I just feel as though that's so vague that I'm having a hard time weighing it against the reaction of ArbCom. I would like to Support, and if what you posted was something like just a general mention that X is a topic of discussion, I will feel comfortable doing so.

    I kind of have to keep some of it somewhat vague, but I will try to adress the points you raise.
    The post that directly led to the initiation of the case against me was me posting about the existence of an on-list discussion about a specific user, and the result of that discussion. As I've indicated, there were no direct quotes from anyone or any other hint of who said what, just that the discussion was had and had been decisisve. I only even brought it up on WPO after the user in question was revealed to be a long-term sock of banned troll. This was the post the WPO mods hid when I asked them to, and I beleive is still hidden/deleted. I still don't think this should be a secret but the committee was upset that I took it upon myself to make that decision, which is not entirely unfair.
    However, several arbs have said that was simply the final straw, and they were much more upset about another incident from several months before that which had not been discussed with me before that. This is fairly public and still out in the open: Gitz6666 was blocked from another WMF wiki, and then globally locked, on the pretense that he had done something extremely out of line, but he wasn't told what this reason actually was. For some weird reson, someone told him to appeal to the en.wp ArbCom, which he did. In the course of the committee talking with the stewards, trying to figure out what exactly was going on, a steward explained what the accusation was to the committee. Gitz posted quite a number of times at WPO about his situation, and while I was skeptical at first and told him as much, I gradually began to feel the situation was manifestly unfair.
    After questioning why this action had been taken against him for some time, he guessed the correct reason for the block/lock. I made a post saying it was too bad I couldn't tell him if that was exactly the right reason, because I couldn't say anything. I was obviously being sarcastic and deliberately telegraphing that he had indeed gotten it right. So, I made a choice to help someone, whom I did not know in any capacity prior to this, and who was caught in a beuracratic nightmare. People throw around the word "Kafkaesque" but this is literally the entire plot of Kafka's only full novel, The Trial.
    I think part of what irritaed the other arbs about this is that the committee does not always have the best relationship with the stewards. I agree that it's unfortunate that this is the case, but I didn't agree that a person wrongly blocked for reasons they weren't being told should just sit there while the committee hoped that the stewards and the admins from that other project would do the right thing. So, I once again did take it upon myself. I don't think for a second that the committee would have voted to drelease this information as it actually was not anything to do with en.wp or the committee and only came our way because someone gave Gitz bad advice. I could have done it by private mesage or email and nobody would know it was me, but I generally don't do things that way.
    It's perhaps worth noting that one of the stewards involved in all this was removed during this years' confirmations largely over their role in this incident, and a number of current and former arbs from en.wp made comments that they should be removed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19. 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 havefell 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] 13:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is similar to question sixteen, so some of my thoughts on what the committee itself could do are already there. Arb absanteeism/apathy is by no means a new phenomenon, and the ARCA thread you mention is one of several indicators that it has been particualrly acute recently, but it seems to have been trending that way since WP:FRAMGATE. The sheer number of arbs that walked away after that was what prompted me to run that year, similarly, the apparent dysfunction of the current committee is what led me to run this time.
    One thing that I don't think has ever been done is a special election, which is permitted by WP:ARBPOL if " arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators." I think the committee should consider it if, for example, an arb does not particpate in committee business for six months or more and a significant portion of other arbs are largely inactive.
    The committee has also recently moved review of most checkuser blocks off of its own plate and pushed it back on-wiki, and I think that was wise. CU block reviews were a huge portion of the off-wiki workload, and most of them did not need an entire committee to come to a conclusion.
    The community, or more speicifcally the admin corps, already handles arbitration enforcement, I'm not sure there's much else it can do, except maybe people should consider, when case requests come up, if they actually have anything substantive to add to the conversation, and if they do not, amybe don't post a statement.
    As to what the founbdation can or should do, Trust and Safety will sometimes make an office ban at the request of the committee largely to provide a new target for whatever highly disruptive person to go after. This doesn't always work but it is worth a try and the more willing they are to do it the better. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20. Having read your statement, I would like to ask this: what reasoning led you to believe that email content, accessible only to a small committee of individuals entrusted with private information that cannot be handled publicly on-wiki, didn't need to be kept private and were fine to leak to a public offsite forum where some banned Wikipedians congregate and engage in behavior that would be disallowed on-wiki? (I am well aware this is not universal to all membership of the site.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Meaning no disrespect, I would ask that you read my answers to questions one, four, six, and eighteen on this page, and my comment here. I feel like I've explained myself pretty thoroughly already, but if you read all that and still have specific questions please ask away. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for directing me to your statement in the Arbitration motion. I had read your answers to questions one, four, six, and eighteen but not clicked through to the motion (since I did not know it included another characterization on your part of your actions). My own question remains, though. I get that you considered your behavior unproblematic and that you disagreed with what the rest of the committee concluded about your behavior, but I don't grasp or see on what grounds you felt the behavior was fine in the first place. It just seems kind of obvious to me that if I know something because of or about an email that only me and a select circle colleagues can access because we were elected to a community position that exists partly to be entrusted with handling information that's supposed to be private, I'm not going to leak stuff on an online forum even if I personally think it's minor; so I'm trying to understand how you drew a very different conclusion. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand and agree with the idea that things like personal information, or even the exact contents of emails should generally be kept private, but I do not believe that it was firmly established before my suspension that there is an expectation of an absolute code of silence with zero exceptions unless the committee as a whole pre-approves it.
    Further to that, the matter with Gitz, which seems to be what most of the committee was most bothered by, was for me a matter of ethical behavior -vs- adherence to the rules. Here was this person who had been trying to figure out why he had been blocked and then globally locked. If he had in fact done what he was accused of, he would've deserved it, but they wouldn't tell him what the accusation even was. Once he knew what it was, he was quickly able to appeal and get the unjustified lock lifted, and the steward who misbehaved here was later removed by the community. That is, as far as I am concerned, the correct outcome. If this had remained a little secret between the committee and the stewards, he might still be unjustly globally locked right now, through no fault of his own. However, the committee didn't see it that way and made it abundantly clear, in an astonishingly fast decision for them, that they believe there are absolutely no exceptions, ever.
    So that's now my understanding of it as well, whether I happen to agree or not.
    I would also assume that this applies not just to posts on WPO but to here on-wiki as well and that all arbs will henceforth be incredibly tight-lipped about any discussion on a mailing list, and not even mention that one exists without clearing it with their peers first. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that fulfilling the community trust of your elected position—which includes maintaining the privacy of Arbitration communication—is what would be ethical. This answer is not what I had hoped for, and the dig at potential future colleagues seems unnecessarily temperature-raising, but both are clarifying. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not running just to make a point, if that is what you are implying, and despite it being asked about again and again here, I'm bot running to re-litigate the case from last year either. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21. Hey JSS. I know your candidacy has invited a lot of questions, and I can see above that some of those lines of questions appear quite hostile - so I hope you don't mind another question, on the more general topic. Wikipediocracy is a lot of things, it hosts individuals who will never be allowed to return to Wikipedia, some of whom will dox or harass individuals without a second thought. Equally, it has been a place of valid criticism of our project, and has discovered and raised concerns about huge issues that we've then been able to deal with - the site is a real mixed bag. Given that you are a regular participant in their forums, do you feel you have a role in encouraging the site away from the certain behaviours and towards others? Do you see yourself as "setting an example" either to WPO members or Wikipedians? Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Totally agree that it is a mixed bag. There are large portions of it I don't even read. I do a few things there, for differing reasons:
    
    One of those things is trying to provide tranparency and policy knowledge, mostly in "governance" threads, as there are quite often posts there that are making assumptions that are just wrong, assuming facts not in evidence, imagining conspiracies that don't exist etc. I also think it is important to be aware of what critics are saying, whether the criticism is valid or not. (up to a point, I don't read that other "critic" site as it is just a few people screaming into the void)
    I also regularly read the threads that offer criticism of article content in apparently little-watched articles or poor-quality images in biographical articles that may be replaceable, ("crap articles" and "unflattering portraits" in WPO vernacular) because those often highlight areas where it may be fairly easy to fix these issues, or where an article we plainly should not even have has sat unnoticed for a prolonged period. This is genuine and useful criticism that provably has resulted in postive changes to the encyclopedia.
    The area that has caused the most consternation on-wiki is of course where individual editors are criticized. I don't think it is patently unfair to criticize WP users on WPO, but I do think it often goes to far, and have written about that in this user essay. Coming up with an insulting nickname for someone and using it over and over again is not a valid way of criticising a person's actions, and actually weakens the case that you have something valid to say. Unless you're Donald Trump it usualy is not a winning strategy.
    I don't suppose I could just leave it at that without adressing the subject of outing. And let's be clear here, as many people have used the term doxxing to describe outing. Wikipedia's definition of outing is a much, much lower bar than doxxing. WPO does not have an outing policy. Most of the internet does not have an outing policy anywhere near as strict as this project. So, some users over there will in fact make connections between accounts on other websites, or even real names. Most of the time, this is done to reveal a suspected WP:COI in a way that would not be possible on-wiki, and is in line with WPO's stated purpose. The same information could be sent to the paid editing VRT queue, but the fact that it was posted on WPO instead does not invalidate it, even if many of us find it distasteful. This is another area twhere WPO has provably uncovered very real problems here on WP. Other times, it seems to be done for no very good reason except to attempt to embarass "power users" such as functionaries or arbs. I don't agree with that, and neither do most WPO commenters, and many of us have said as much,
    
    I think what we need here, on WP is an understanding that making posts on WPO is not an endorsement of every single thing that happens over there, any more than editing a Wikipedia article is an endorsement of every other edit that has ever been made here. I've seen some users baldly state that people need to pick a side and be loyal to it. That sort of divisive us-or-them rheotric has caused much drama, while accomplishing exactly nothing except to drive more traffinc to WPO to see what the fuss is about. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22. If you fail to reach the 50% threshold for a one-year term by a slim margin, will you consider it proof that the community has lost faith in you, at least as far as arbitration is concerned? Sincerely, Dilettante 19:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23. 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 would think that any the vast majority of Wikipedians would agree that any form of discrimination against any group is not ok. However, ArbCom deals with behavior, not content, and has no mandate or authority to interfere in a decision like listing the ADL as unreliable. What it can do is provide tools such a WP:CTOP designations, topic bans, etc, to discourage and/or remove disruptive editors that push any sort of discriminatory narrative. A full case has been approved by the current committee to address these issues. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24. 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) 05:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel like this is substantially similar to question number 8. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25. 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) 05:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone who has been around as long as either of us has has certainly seen this scenario any number of times. What is often frustrating is that such persons tend to be at their most unpleasant when they are actually right about whatever is being argued about. This often serves a shield for their nasty remarks "yeah, he shouldn't have said it that way, but he's right" has excused quite a few such persons.
    
    This tendency may result in a situation wherein it becomes clear that the community has tried and failed to effectively deal with the users' behavior, and that is generally the bar for accepting a case, although in the contemporary era of ArbCom taking cases regarding a single non-admin user is extremely rare as the community has gotten somewhat more willing to issue "exhausted the community's patience" bans. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26. As a still newish editor who's just finished slogging through everything from, to, and about the candidates, I’m worn out. But glad I did it. I was very tempted just to "sit out" the election, what with so many terms and acronyms and references to situations and issues I was clueless about.
    What an insightful journey it's been. Now I much more clearly understand what the Arb Committee does and the value of voting in the election. I feel I'd actually sort of met you. And I certainly gained appreciation for the many contributions of Wiki service that you and your fellow candidates have already provided, along with your willingness to wade out deeper. (Can't think of a more perfect day on which to say this — by coincidence, it's Thanksgiving Day!)
    In light of the uphill challenges I faced en route to get where I can finally consider pressing the Vote button, I have a question to ask you and your fellow candidates:
    Because of the complexity of things to be aware of in the Arb election, how would you recommend that editors with different amounts of time on board with Wikipedia approach voting — or be approached — to vote? Perhaps time isn't the best criterion, but something else like general # of edits, or desire to dive into Wikipedia activity?
    Of course it's a bit late to implement any ideas you and your fellow candidates may come up for the 2024 election. But there are lots more elections ahead.Augnablik (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It can certainly be difficult trying to keep up with all the various elections and other areas such as RFA and the Functionaries appointment process. This year we had the additon of admin elections,and admin recalls, and it seems all of these things are going on either simultaneously or one right after the other.
    
    It's near impossible to be an informed voter in every single on of these things, even if you have lots of free time. I imagine not a lot of people actually read every answer to every question asked of every candidate, as they may already have some familiarity with some of the candidates. It's tough for newer users to be able to have that sort of familiarity with a dozen candidates, let alone the thirty-something candidates we had in the admin elections. There are of course user-created voter guides, and I confess that I do read those every year, even though they are just opinions or in some cases nothing but tables and stats. Statistics can give you a vague idea of a users experience on the project, but they don't tell you anything abiout the candidates ideals, their temperment, sense of fairness, etc. So this question-and-answer format is about the best we can do.Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

27. 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) 11:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]