Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Simonm223/Questions

Individual questions

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

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

Use the |list resume= option to correct list numbering issues, by manually specifying the start point.

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

Thank you for standing as a candidate. 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]
I think the thing that makes me feel optimistic right now is that we seem to be seeing something of a sea-change regarding the over-reliance on newsmedia as a reliable source. This has been something of a pet issue of mine for some time and I have been a minority voice here. However recently I've been seeing more and more editors discussing newsmedia as being something that should not be relied on when other options are available. This is excellent. On the other hand I'm somewhat pessimistic about how Wikipedia still has failed to address some of its systemic biases. This, combined with increased judicial pressure from post-democratic states, is a risk to the project and needs to be firmly addressed.
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]
I think the arbitration committee has been over-reliant on extended confirmed protection. Our ideals are that "anybody can edit Wikipedia" - however the proliferation of ECR pages has made it so there is an increasingly large caveat to that statement. I would prefer to rely on other remedies before this one.
Thank you for standing as a candidate. Are there any topic areas that you would consider yourself involved in, to the extent that you would recuse from any cases related to it? BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration committee policy is as follows: "An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from any aspect of a case, with or without explanation and is expected to do so where they have a significant conflict of interest. Typically, a conflict of interest includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties. Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal." I would adhere to that policy as appropriate. In addition, I would recuse myself from those issues presently before the arbitration committee to which I have made comment should those remain on the docket after the close of this election.
Followup: Recently, an administrator was deemed involved in relation to the Israel-Hamas war due to their participation in the topic area. Given your participation is both more extensive and more partisan (they didn’t use a pejorative to refer to one side, for example), why do you not consider yourself involved? BilledMammal (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at my article space edit history you will see I don'tedit much in Israel / Palestineand when I do it's almost always in directresponse to a conversation at WP:RS/N or WP:NPOV/N. I rarely stick around article tqlk for I/P articles for long and almost never make more than one edit to topic area in a day. My general engagementwith the topicarea is routine. Recently I have been involved with several discussions at arbitration enforcement and arbitration cases. This is becauseI feel these arbitration actions represent an abuseof process and that those editors responsible for making public accusationson private evidence or opening three enforcement actions on one editor in short succession all based on the flimsiest of pretexts should face sensure. I have committedto recusingmyself from those specific arbitration cases. I will not commit to recusing myself from a topic area where I am only marginally involved on the basis of one heated comment.
Have you ever been involved - whether as a recipient or a sender - with off-wiki canvassing? BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I find this question offensive. You have no legitimate cause to suspect me of any such activity and this line of questioning is inappropriate. With that being said I will give you a straightforward and honest answer anyway: No.
Have you ever been paid to edit or edited on behalf of another?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No.
Why have you never requested the administrator toolset at WP:RFA nor gone through admin elections? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question. I've thought about it. I have friends who are administrators and maintain collegial relations with more administrators. I do keep an eye on WP:AN and WP:AN/I and post to those boards relatively regularly. The truth is that, while I've thought about it on occasion, it never really seemed like Wikipedia lacked for administrators. Most of what I like to do in Wikipedia is to either participate in noticeboard discussions or edit extant articles. So since what I generally like to do on Wikipedia does not require it and since it didn't seem like something that was needed I didn't see any reason that would benefit the project for me requesting these tools.
As you have never held any advanced rights on the English Wikipedia other than being extended-confirmed, what history of actions on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects show that you can be trusted with access to the checkuser and oversight tools that would be granted to sitting arbitrators? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being perfectly honest it never occurred to me as I was volunteering that being an arbitrator would give me access to those tools. I did actually make a request for mentorship as a SPI clerk some time ago (although that seems to have gone nowhere in particular) and have some interest in sock-puppet investigations and assisting with that part of the project - something that might have, in time, led to me requesting CheckUser privileges. What it comes down to is, unlike with the administrator role, I saw a need for arbitrators, with fewer volunteers than open seats at the time I put up my hand, and I felt it was a position where my volunteer energy would be of value for the project.
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]
I'm generally not fond of private evidence and believe it should only be used when there is an extremely compelling reason for making said evidence private. Otherwise I believe arbitration proceedings should be as transparent as possible. It's supposed to be a method of resolving public disputes - not a private court system. I think I know precisely which arbitration case this is kind of asking about as I was quite vocal about that issue and what I'd say is that the handling of that issue - a public accusation built around private evidence - was the worst of both worlds. It was non-transparent, provided insufficient opportunities for the accused parties to meaningfully respond, and simultaneously potentially stained the perception of comportment of editors who may have done nothing wrong. My opinion is that a private arbitration case for which a compelling requirement for in-camera response exists should be private start to finish and should include private contact of involved parties to get their responses to any evidence against them.
As others have noted above, you are running for ArbCom as a non-administrator. My question does not concern the "philosophical" aspects of electing a non-admin to the Committee (I can see both pros and cons), but the practical aspect. It is sometimes necessary for arbitrators to review deleted pages or deleted revisions while evaluating editor conduct, which only admins can do. If elected, would you plan to (1) run an RfA at that point (I have no doubt you would pass), (2) request some sort of temporary admin privileges to be used in connection with your arbitration duties (that would seem sensible, but we don't currently have a mechanism for it), (3) ask for oversight rights and use those to look up the deleted revisions (if that works technically, which I'm not sure about), (4) rely on other arbs to look up the deleted revisions, or (5) something else I haven't thought of? Thank you and good luck in the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said before that I hadn't requested adminship as it wasn't necessary to do the sorts of things I've been doing on the project. If I'm in a position where that changes, and those volunteer responsibilities I'm taking on necessitate that responsibility, I suppose, yes, I would request adminship. Heck, who knows, it might let me lend a hand on sock puppet investigations too.
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) 23:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC); edited, 01:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that it will somewhat reduce the overall load on the arbitration committee by providing an alternate avenue for handling disputes with admins. Beyond that there is the question of how Arbcom would deal with a situation wherein an arbitrator who is an admin and relying on admin tools to arbitrate is desysopped hopefully this is not something that would occur but if it does it could lead to some minor complications.

Just for an update, the consensus at a VP discussion decided (diff) to no longer label RRFA a "policy". George Ho (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you not run for adminship before running for Arb. As an Arb you atleast need access to deleted material for sure. How will you manage it ?Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually answered this question above - I didn't run for adminship as I didn't need it to accomplish the tasks I like to do on the project. Should I be elected as arbitrator and should it become evident that I require admin tools to successfully perform the role I will seek an RfA quickly.
In this case request statement, you referred to the Israel Defense Forces as the IOF, which is presumably a shorthand pejorative for the "Israel Occupation Forces" according to our disambiguation page on the topic. Do you think that language was appropriate behavior in making statements to the committee you're hoping to serve on? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a single comment in a heated moment - I will, of course, endeavor to arbitrate fairly, impartially and guided by the rules and norms of Wikipedia.
In light of the above question, would you commit to recusing yourself from participating in cases relating to the ARBPIA topic area? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unless, as I mentioned in the questions about recusals above, I was significantly involved in a discussion per the definition in the arbitrator regulations I cited. My having once expressed a personal opinion about an active military force is not, in my opinion, a hindrance on my ability to dispense my duties appropriately and according to the rules and norms of Wikipedia.
Do you think that committee members should go into an ArbCom case with the goal to implement a specific remedy, regardless of prelimary evidence, or should committee members try and approach the case with an open mind? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think arbitrators should approach any given case with an open mind regarding remedies. As I mentioned in a prior answer I do think that ArbCom has been too dependent on ECR as a remedy - but this doesn't mean I'd never consider it if it were appropriate as a remedy. An arbitrator should, ultimately, mediate and resolve disputes. Our remedies must be tailored to the disputes we're trying to resolve.
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? 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agreed with quite a lot of what you had to say in your musings. In particular I do think there are serious structural problems with how Wikipedia manages dispute resolution. I do pay relatively close attention to WP:AN/I and to WP:ARBCOM pages (a side effect of my first area of focus in Wikipedia being China) and AN/I, in particular could do with significant restructuring, including more formal procedures for creating, responding to and resolving incidents. I think the main reasons why we don't fix it are strain on volunteertime and institutional inertia.
You have relatively little experience of the back end of Wikipedia compared to most other candidates. Do you have any other relevant experience of making difficult decisions or handling sensitive information? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a bit actually. My career is as a project manager and I've worked in both the private and public sector, including with medical technology. As a result I have had to regularly handle a variety of highly confidential information. A past position in veterans affairs required a security clearance and I have a certification for handling HIPAA materials. Regarding difficult decisions, my work experience has included being in the position of making hiring decisions. Beyond my work history, I have engagedin a host of off-wiki volunteer activities that required me to handle sensitive or private information. For obvious reasons I can'telaborate much beyond what I have disclosed here. But, yes, I am quite comfortable keeping confidence and being responsiblefor difficult choices.
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 think this is somewhere that arbitrators should tread very carefully. Frankly we can't expect editors to have no thoughts, feelings or moral / ethical presuppositions that will influence what they believe is appropriate for Wikipedia. Questions as to what makes a source unreliable, what constitutes mainstream or fringe views and what words like "neutral" should mean are open to interpretation and, for Wikipedia to remain collaborative, must continue to remain open to interpretation. In light of that no POV of an editor should be subject to discipline unless it becomes disruptive to the work of creating a collaborative encyclopedia. If editor behavior is disruptive then the level of politeness is, in all likelihood, irrelevant.
What have you done to prepare yourself to understand the arbitration committee's workload, and to manage your time to handle it? isaacl (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite good at handling large email loads and have significant prior volunteer experience on boards of directors. I have reviewed what the arbitration committee is supposed to handle and feel, based on my review of available data, that it is within my capacity.
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) 21:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever possible as much of an arbitration decision as possible should be transparent. If votes are held in camera there should be a compelling reason. Otherwise that information should be public.
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) 11:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a signatory and support the proposed blackout action.

Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current antisemitism scandal the encyclopaedia is embroiled in, do you understand the anxieties of Jewish editors and users, as well as the 15 million jews worldwide, whose safety is ultimately put at risk when Wikipedia's processes are hijacked to list resources like the ADL as unrealiable? 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) 21:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the recent discussion of the ADL was that it is only being seen as unreliable for items related to the Israel / Palestine conflict - and that RFC seems, to me, to have followed appropriate process. I suppose, if you believe that the handling of this source or other actions were motivated by antisemitism, and you are hoping for arbitration intercession, the best thing to do would be to file a case presenting evidence of this.
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) 05:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ArbCom should accept public cases that principally rely upon private evidence. If there is a compelling reason for in-camera arbitration then the affected parties should be notified privately. A shell case can be constructed into which public-facing information can be placed but this should be done by an arbitrator or clerk after acceptance of the case. Ideally as much of an arbitration process as possible should be public.
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) 05:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do worry sometimes that a certain rather culturally bound form of formal politeness is used as a cudgel within Wikipedia. However I also think it's important to maintain a collegial environment. Ultimately arbitration should be a dispute resolution tool, not the supreme court of en.wikipedia - if a single editor's civility has become enough of an issue that it has become actively disruptive this should generally be addressed by administrators rather than arbitrators. If that pattern of incivility is, however, part of a greater conflict between parties on the project then that should be addressed by arbitration during the production of remedies at the closure of a case.

Violates WP:ARBPIA

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There has been a recent worrying trend whereby editors have injected their political opinions into sensitive Wikipedia topics (in particular, the Israel - Palestinian conflict, although there are many others as well). Editors will bend the rules in order to ensure that their positions are established in the articles (ie deleting any unfavorable edits to pages describing their preferred parties, claiming sources such as Al Jazeera are considered trustworthy while Jerusalem Post is not etc) resulting in a growing mistrust in articles on this platform. Biased editors will also ban or threaten to ban any editors who undo their biased edits and deletions. What actions will you take to reverse this trend which, if unchecked, will permanently damage Wikipedia's reputation?
This question assumes that people who treat Al Jazeera as a reliable source and Jerusalem Post as non-reliable are doing so for partisan reasons and not because, for example, Jerusalem Post regularly publishes misinformation and doesn't adequately post corrections afterward while AJE does not do these things. That being said I think anyone who has examined my commentary at WP:RS/N will know that I have a low opinion of the use of news media as a source on Wikipedia and believe, whenever possible, we shouldn't use any news media source if academic sources exist. I would also contend that, where academic sources do not exist, we should think twice about whether a topic is encyclopedically relevant. However, as an arbitrator, I would not have any power to enact a blanket ban on news media. Instead I'll endeavor to adjudicate disputes with the five pillars of Wikipedia as guiding principles and will avoid presuppositions regarding this or that source or the perceived reputational impact of this or that decision in favour of attempting to dispense my duties appropriately.

How do you think the ArbCom will function within the next year or two without you if you are unsuccessful in becoming an elected (non-admin) arbitrator? --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just fine honestly. Like I think I could do a good job at this and it's something I would be happy to do to contribute to the project but I'm pretty confident in the capacity of many of the other nominees.
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) 11:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]