Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Tamzin/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line 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.

Questions from Red-tailed hawk[edit]

  2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    INVOLVED is one of our most important admin policies, and also one of our vaguest. The "any reasonable administrator" exception is defined in a long history of case law at both community noticeboards and ArbCom—some of which reminds me of the "uncertainty and manipulability" one academic saw in the test adopted in a Supreme Court case I wrote about, but which may be best summed up in the Hobbes quote excerpted at INVOLVED: "No man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause." If something could reasonably be seen as an administrator or arbitrator's "own cause", they should not be acting with hat on in that scenario. (Emphasis "reasonably", and "own cause" in the sense of "having a stake in it", not just having an opinion. Attempts to impute a personal stake based on speculation or innuendo should be disregarded, and consistently have been by both the community and ArbCom.) INVOLVED also has a—well, I don't want to lean too hard on the legal terms, but dare I say a penumbra: situations that may be nominally exempt but where it's still best to avoid admin action. This is acknowledged in the policy itself: Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. (I was reminded of that myself recently... More on that in future answers.)
    I'm not going to comment on specific decisions, particularly the first of those three, as I would have recused in that case had I been on the Committee for it. I will say that, generally, I like where ArbCom's INVOLVED jurisprudence stands. It's important to understand that, of all the big-deal admin policies, it's one of the less bright lines, and there are situations where content work and admin work blur together, e.g. removing BLPvio from an article and then protecting it or blocking the user responsible. ArbCom has recognized this by being generally less inclined to first-offense desysop for INVOLVED actions where there's any amount of mitigation, relative to more blatant INVOLVED actions or other big admin no-nos like wheel-warring. On the other hand, for the truly unambiguous stuff, like blocking a good-faith content-dispute opponent, a first-offense desysop is solidly on the table, and should be. When real life people learn I'm a Wikipedia admin (look, it's a decent icebreaker), I often have to explain to them that no, I don't have any special authority in content matters. It's very important that that remain true, and ArbCom has an important role in keeping things that way.

Questions from Starship.paint[edit]

  2. Noting your six-month tenure as admin, and within the last month, you were involved in an incident with Volunteer Marek where you partially blocked him from a page, Volunteer Marek protested, you called it the most unbecoming conduct I've seen from an experienced user in response to a block, the dispute continued on his talk page, and you site blocked Volunteer Marek and removed talkpage access. According to Newyorkbrad, the site block was unwarranted and should be overturned ... Adverse comments by sanctioned users against sanctioning admins are part of the territory ... it can be especially escalatory for an admin who perceives herself as the target of an attack to place the block, except in cases of gross abuse or harassment, and this was not that, and the removal of talkpage access was unneccesary. Subsequently you said you miscalculated badly, restored talkpage access after soliciting community input, while another admin removed the siteblock.

    Having made an error in judgment so recently, and yet continued to run for ArbCom, how can voters be sure that your judgment has vastly improved to become an ArbCom member who should handle disputes well? starship.paint (exalt) 00:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope that the community sees my willingness to seek and heed feedback about my actions as indicative of good judgment, not bad, so I'm not sure how to answer this question, with the presuppositions it has. Also, to be clear, I reversed the siteblock myself; the intervention of another admin (with my support) was to remove the partial block as "time served".

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

  2. Going off your RFA and the aforementioned incident, some might say that you seem to get involved in a lot of controversy. Do you think this is true? How would this affect a potential term on ArbCom? --Rschen7754 01:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's true, no. Most of what I do is content work. Most of the rest is routine admin work. When I've taken "non-routine" admin actions (DS/GS enforcement, blocks of experienced users, etc.), I have with one singular exception avoided any significant controversy, even with actions where I was braced for it (e.g. my indefblock of Philip Cross or my tempblock of BrownHairedGirl). I feel bad about that one exception. I don't want that to get lost here. I apologized to Marek, and he responded with a compliment about an article I'd written, and I was glad we got a resolution to that extent. There's also one non-admin action I've taken that I knew would be controversial, which was proposing the siteban of Athaenara. I didn't like the idea of causing further drama there—it was the first top-level AN/I thread I'd started since 2013. But it was a conversation I felt needed to happen, and I thought better it come from someone who could make a case beyond "ban her for believing the wrong thing".
    So, while I don't deny I've been involved in a few controversies, I think if you look at the totality of what I do here, it adds up to well less controversy than most similarly-situated editors. I dislike conflict, and spend most of my time doing noncontroversial things like writing about memes and blocking sox. I made a decision in 2017 to mostly avoid "the busier parts of projectspace". As an admin I've modified that to allow for engaging in an administrative capacity at some of those venues, although since my nightmare in August I've made sure it's never to such an extent that I'm dealing more with people than with words.
    As to how my controversiality, to the extent that it exists, would affect a term on ArbCom, I think it's more how a term on ArbCom would affect it. It's generally best for arbs to avoid making potentially controversial blocks (as regular admin actions) or proposing community sanctions, and I would follow those principles.

Questions from Izno[edit]

  2. As an arb, you will have to deal with messes which often have a lot of reading attached to them. Some of them will be the reasonably ordered messes most cases are. Some of them won't be. One mess I regularly think about is this case request (last revision before archival and first revision). Assuming (for simplicity's sake) that the entire discussion was held onwiki, can you share some thoughts on how you might have responded to the original case request, the changes in aggregate that occurred while the request open, and the ultimate case request? Izno (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if you look at the end result there, essentially a full case having played out at A/R/C, it would have been better for there to have been a proper case. (Not necessarily with a different outcome; arriving at the same conclusion in a less chaotic way would have still been an improvement.) But looking at how things transpired, I also see how a complex multi-threaded discussion, with good-faith concerns about the implications of starting a case at all, led to things being resolved the way they were. If there's a lesson to be learned here, I think, it's that if multiple aspects of a request would require their own motions to address, a case is better—keeping in mind that potential misconduct in requesting the case itself is within a case's scope. Or the lesson is that there are some topics on Wikipedia so divisive that things will always be messy.
    So with the advantage of hindsight, I would have initially tended toward declining the case, in favor of further community review; would have come to support a case once further allegations were made in both directions; and would have opposed disposing of the case by motion.

Question from Beyond My Ken[edit]

  2. Considering the very short period of time you have been an admin, do you really feel that you have enough experience to qualify to be an arbitrator, especially considering the concerns about your temperament which were raised at your (very close) RfA, and the recent incident with Volunteer Marek? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've long hoped to see a non-admin arb. If we don't get that this election (and I hope that we do!), then I hope there will at least be some benefit in having an arbitrator who can freshly remember what it's like to not be an admin. Many ADMINCOND cases involve understanding how an administrator's actions affected non-admins, and I think I still understand that perspective very well. If there's one thing I gained from my RfA, it's that by the end I was thoroughly disabused of any notion that adminship is something special.

Questions from TheresNoTime[edit]

  2. How do you foresee the role of the Arbitration Committee changing with regard to the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct (namely, due to the enforcement guidelines, and the introduction of the global Coordinating Committee)? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While a significant change on paper, my anticipation is that the only thing that will change here for ArbCom's role is that (appeal to Jimbo notwithstanding) it will go from being a de jure court of last resort to being a de facto one. It seems unlikely to me that the U4C will have much appetite to overrule any decisions by the enwiki ArbCom—partly because of enwiki's traditional autonomy, partly because it seems unlikely ArbCom will have the sort of "systematic failure" that falls under U4C jurisdiction. In the event that the U4C did overturn ArbCom on something, I imagine that would be FRAMGATE levels of drama. Whatever the outcome, I don't thnk anyone other than dramamongers would walk away happy, so I think what's important for ArbCom to do is maintain the working relationship it already has with the WMF and work on creating a peer-to-peer relationship with the U4C and other ArbComs once that infrastructure is in place. Periodic meetings to discuss different communities' norms could go a long way toward avoiding that kind of crisis.
    Additionally, before the U4C is set up, the community should discuss whether or not to bar sitting arbs from serving on it. (Personally, I would not be willing to wear both hats at once, even if allowed by policy.)
  4. Is ANI pronounced A-N-I or Annie? Thank you for standing, and good luck. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hereby add this topic to the list of matters I will recuse on.

Questions from Joe Roe[edit]

  2. How you would approach a situation where somebody you considered a friend was party to an arbitration matter? For example, how would you decide whether or not to recuse? Would it be different for public versus nonpublic matters? – Joe (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recuse from any matter involving someone I consider a personal friend. If it were a large case where that person's role were separable from everything else, that might mean just a partial recusal; if they were integral to the full situation, it would mean a full recusal. This would be the same in both public and private matters.
  4. WP:VPP#RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE arose from a difference of opinion between you and the majority of the functionary team (including ArbCom) on our policy on nonpublic-evidence blocks. My concern at the time was that, despite still being quite new to adminship, your reaction to ArbCom's statement of their understanding of policy was apparently that they were wrong and you were right, and you escalated the situation to a community-wide RfC on that basis. Is that a fair assessment of the situation? If elected, are there circumstances where you would expect functionaries, admins or other users to simply defer to the committee's judgement, i.e. accept what you say whether or not they agree with it? – Joe (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that[1] is not a fair assessment of the situation. I blocked a user and, on advice of a sitting arbitrator, designated the block as "appeal to ArbCom only". I believe that was consistent with policy as written at the time, and to my knowledge you are the only person to suggest that it wasn't, or that ArbCom's subsequent statement was meant as a repudiation of it. That statement did not overturn that provision of the block, and in fact did not mention the block at all, nor did any arb communicate with me privately about it,[2] nor did the statement have any retroactive effect on blocks previously made in compliance with the old policy. Which makes clear the issue with ArbCom's statement: It made new policy. ArbCom cannot make new policy. If arbs find an inconsistency in community policy that affects ArbCom, they should refer that question to the community for resolution, not try to fix the situation by issuing a third set of rules that contradicts both of the existing policy provisions and has no clear constitutional basis. I am proud of having called ArbCom out for overstepping its authority, and glad that L235's and my proposal led to a clarification of the policy ArbCom had tried to unconstitutionally supersede, and thus the restoration of community supremacy on the question of blocks for private evidence.
    are there circumstances where you would expect functionaries, admins or other users to simply defer to the committee's judgement, i.e. accept what you say whether or not they agree with it? There are situations where only ArbCom possesses relevant information justifying some action, but for privacy reasons cannot share those reasons. In those cases, ArbCom should give as much detail as possible, but there are still cases where that means no detail. In which cases, arbs should be understanding of community members who are confused (and likewise community members should assume good faith on the part of the arbs). But other than private-evidence situations, no, there are no situations where people should just have to listen to arbs because they are arbs. I strongly reject any notion that places arbs as hierarchically above other community members, just as I rejected ArbCom's attempt to place checkusers hierarchically above other admins, and as I reject the notion that there's a tenure requirement for an admin to criticize a Committee decision.

References

  1. ^ Note: referring to an earlier version of this question, which was edited without disclaimer after a bizarre talkpage thread in which Joe seems to acknowledge not having had any evidence for his statement that ArbCom found me to have misunderstood policy.
  2. ^ Clarification: An arb told me a change was being discussed to "appeal only to ArbCom" blocks; there was no implication that I'd done anything wrong in the block I made.

Question from Iridescent[edit]

  2. As you know, because of how recent both your RFA and the incident alluded to above were, a significant number of Wikipedia editors are explicitly and recently on the record as expressing concerns about your judgement. Those people most vocal (both pro and anti) are likely to have a significant overlap with the group of people most likely to be sucked into Arbcom cases. If on the committee, how would you handle situations when participants raised concerns that you potentially wouldn't be impartial, and how would you handle situations where people said they were unwilling to disclose relevant details to the committee because they didn't trust you with sensitive personal information? (Arbcom does have mechanisms such as parallel mailing lists for excluding a particular arb from discussions in which there are potential issues with their participation, but it obviously wouldn't be practical to exclude you from any case involving one of the 400+ participants in the RFA.) This isn't intended as a gotcha question; there genuinely isn't a right answer, but it's a situation I can virtually guarantee will repeatedly arise. ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After my RfA, Liz advised me to put out of my mind who had voted which way, and I've followed that advice. There's a few I remember (e.g. you, because we had a side-discussion about your vote afterward), but with 450 voters, it would take active effort to remember who voted which way. Case in point, in the course of reviewing my first GA, MaxnaCarta recently corrected me when I said we'd never interacted before. He'd voted oppose, it turns out. He says he regrets that vote, but I wouldn't care if he didn't. or most of my RfA, people were voting much more based on an idea I was taken to represent than on me, so I really take it even less personally than I would to begin with. Since then, I've stuck up for any number of opposers, and called out any number of supporters—one of my first admin actions was to block the sockpuppet of one—and often only realized afterward when someone else pointed it out.
    All of this is to say, I don't think I have a higher duty than any other admin or would-be arb to recuse based on someone having supported/opposed at RfA, and that's not generally something that people recuse over. I would recuse if I felt I can't be impartial, or if there were a clear reason that I would appear to have a personal stake (see also answer in § Questions from Red-tailed hawk). The number of people for whom I feel I can't be impartial, based on something they said at my RfA or in the recent Marek Affair, is maybe 10-15, and actually most of them are not people I'd expect to show up at RfAr. If it were a case specifically about the conduct of a single user or small number of users, my threshold to recuse would be a bit lower: A strongly-worded RfA oppose may or may not be enough to trigger a partial or full recusal in a "This whole topic area is a fucking mess" kind of case, but it's probably enough in a "This admin has a history of bad speedies" kind of case.
    As with my answer to BilledMammal below, I appreciate some of this is non-specific, as I'm trying to answer generally for a very broad array of situations; if you have more specific hypotheticals, I'm happy to get into those.

Question from EchidnaLives[edit]

  2. Hello Tamzin. Following the recent incident with Volunteer Malek, what do you believe were the most important things you learnt from your self-requested review at the administrators' noticeboard? echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a little-picture half and a big-picture half.
    The little-picture half is that I may have been too bureaucratic in how I've handled some edit wars. Many editors' perspective was that the p-block, at least, was within administrative discretion, but may not have been the best use of that discretion, and I've come to agree. I said at my RfA that I didn't want to be the kind of admin who blocks good-faith contributors as a first resort, and the incident with Marek reminded me to redouble my commitment to that. I should have given all participants warnings for edit-warring just outside the 24h 1RR, imposed the 72h 1RR, and seen what happened. Maybe people would have crossed the new line and I would have blocked them anyways, but it would have been a much cleaner block and much fairer to all involved.
    The big-picture half is that, as discussed a bit in § Questions from Red-tailed hawk, even situations that are not INVOLVED are best passed off to other admins if they're close to the INVOLVED line. I wasn't involved in a non-administrative capacity, and of the many people to comment, only a few said I was; but I think we all agree that I shouldn't have been the one to make the block, involved or not. I already understood there's times one should recuse if not strictly involved. For instance, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive310 § Screendeemer, I could have speedied the various pages and blocked or DS TBANned the user, and that would have been allowed by INVOLVED, but I recognized that doing so might give an appearance of impropriety, and instead speedy-tagged for other admins' review and brought the user to AE for a fuller discussion. But here I was reminded how deep that principle runs. It was a painful way to learn that lesson, but thankfully it's a very easy mistake to not make twice.

Questions from Gerda Arendt[edit]

  2. Do you believe that we still have infobox wars? If yes, do you have better ideas than the 2013 arb ruling to end them?
    I have not personally been a party to, nor borne witness to, any infobox wars. (In my own articles, I follow a rule of "Would an infobox actually say anything useful?" Usually yes, but sometimes no.) I am aware that infobox disputes do still arise from time to time, but they don't seem any more common than other types of content-style warring, and I don't currently see reason to think that lingering issues can't be resolved through community processes. If one thing's changed since 2013, it's that the community's gotten much better at self-governance.
  4. Thank you, and I agree about hoping that community processes will be used to resolve disputes. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective? An extra one for you if you like: do you understand that I didn't begin an RfC for Cosima Wagner? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the talkpages at Olivier and Wagner show mostly healthy discussions on a topic that tends to evoke strong feelings. Sometimes editors get entrenched in positions, and this can make it unpleasant to continue a discussion, but I don't see anything at either page that suggests current community processes—backed by the infobox DS if necessary—are inadequate.
One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DanCherek[edit]

  2. Thanks for volunteering. In your statement you mention that you think ArbCom's supervision of checkusers and oversighters is not transparent enough. On a practical level, what steps would you take (or propose) to remedy this? DanCherek (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's ever appropriate for the Committee to issue a restriction on an advanced permission holder's tool use, or admonish a user for tool misuse, without making this fact public. If ArbCom determines, for instance, that a CU should not be making a certain category of checks, that should be posted at WP:ACN the same way that a TBAN or admonishment of an admin would be. If elected, I would also seek to revive the periodic activity reports AUSC used to give (on a more regular basis) and likewise the old practice of occasionally making public internal findings on select notable cases of CU/OS usage (with functionary identity anonymized if necessary).

Questions from 53 Angle[edit]

  2. Do you think think there is sufficient independence between the CheckUser group and ArbCom, given one of the most important roles of ArbCom is the investigation of evidence backed allegations of improper use of the CheckUser tool? Do you think it would be a good idea if it was ever to be decided that there should never be a majority of ArbCom members of the Committee who have directly served in CheckUser or adjacent roles? 53 Angle (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)— 53 Angle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I think arbs should avoid making too much use of the CU tool, especially if they weren't community-appointed CUs before, but I don't see any evidence there's currently an issue with lines blurring too much between the CU team and ArbCom. I would not support the policy you describe, although I'm not sure if it would ever come into play regardless. Most arbs are not "career CUs".

Questions from BilledMammal[edit]

  2. Would you ever support a principle or finding of fact that is based on the Universal Code of Conduct?
    I won't say I'd categorically never support one. If the principle or FoF were about the existence of a given UCoC provision, I can imaging situations where that might make sense to support. What I wouldn't support is a principle or FoF invoking solely the UCoC. If it's a good provision of the UCoC, there should be some provision of local policy to invoke instead. If it's a bad provision, then it shouldn't be invoked. (I feel meh toward principles or FoFs invoking both enwiki policy and the UCoC; I wouldn't propose one myself, but it wouldn't be a hard bar to supporting, assuming the enwiki policy invocation were apt.)
  4. You often edit within controversial topic areas; RoySmith points out that you proudly state that you've written an article that’s subject to 4 discretionary sanctions. If elected, which broad topic areas would you recuse yourself from to avoid WP:INVOLVED issues?
    Since you've brought it up. I'll start by responding to a point that Roy makes, about me both being conflict-averse and being proud of having written an article that's in 4 DS areas: Well, yes, that's why I'm proud of it! I don't tend to be proud of doing easy things. Writing 1,800 words on a living trans woman who's been active in U.S. politics and serves in the Ukrainian militarybonus community sanction!, without that devolving into a mess of edit-warring and talkpage acrimony, was a challenge, and one I'm proud of having succeeded at (so far,  kinehore). I think being conflict-averse is a very good attribute to have when editing in topic areas where we're all trying to, well, avoid conflict. I also think it's a good attribute to have when serving on a body that arbitrates conflicts, but hey, YMMV.
    As to topic-area involvement, neither the community nor ArbCom has ever set a clear standard for when an editor becomes involved with respect to an entire topic area. To the extent that it's a thing, it's a pretty high bar: GiantSnowman, a case about an editor heavily involved in the football (soccer) topic area who made several controversial administrative actions in that topic area, did not see any FoFs or remedies (even unsuccessful ones) arguing he should not act as an admin on football matters. Thus, I don't think I am involved with respect to, say, GENSEX as a whole or the Russo-Ukrainian War as a whole. Where I am involved is certain aspects of the topic areas you've referred to. I consider myself involved with respect to the question of trans people's names, pronouns, and labeling, and already apply that principle in my actions as an admin (with the caveat that much of the disruption in that sub–topic area is outright vandalism or BLPvio [e.g. "Jane Doe is a man"] and thus exempt from INVOLVED). There's some other narrow aspects of GENSEX I'd recuse over as involved, like a hypothetical dispute over the applicability of MEDRS to content on transgender healthcare, which I seem to be one of the only people who enforces.
    And I guess within AmPol I'm probably involved with respect to the sub–topic area of retaliatory arrest in the United States, since I've written a good portion of our content on it by now, including our only GA on it... But the only conflicts I've ever gotten into over that have been polite disagreements over some finer legal points, so I doubt that'll wind up at ArbCom anytime soon—but again  kinehore.
    In other controversial topic areas, I'm involved with respect to articles I've written and edits I've made (and rarely users I've come into conflict with, but see above), but I haven't had much involvement in broader consensus-building that would make me involved with respect to a particular sub–topic area. (For instance, I don't think occasional edits to articles about mass shootings in the United States—usually adding basic facts or enforcing WP:BLP—make me involved with respect to gun control or any subtopic thereof.)
    That said, involvement is not the only consideration with recusals. There's also the appearance of bias to worry about, and that's an appearance that's heightened on ArbCom relative to regular administrative actions. With that in mind, I would recuse as an arbitrator with respect to Donald Trump and his vocal supporters (as I already do as an admin), transgender bathroom access, and the Russo-Ukrainian War, as these are topic areas where I've voiced my political opinions on-wiki—even if I do believe I could serve impartially in those areas.
  6. Thank you for the detailed reply. As a follow up to question 2, as an arbitrator you would be able to sit on cases that impact a entire topic area - the subareas you are WP:INVOLVED in and the subareas you are not alike. For example, a hypothetical AMPOL 3 would impact both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

    Within your response you have addressed cases that impact a subpart of a broad topic area, but not cases that impact the entire topic area. My question is in which broad topic areas would you recuse yourself from cases that would impact the entire topic area?

    Caveat: This answer only includes topic-based recusals; i.e. it assumes that in each hypothetical case there's no party who would necessitate a partial or full recusal.
    • It's hard to imagine an AMPOL 3 where Trump-related aspects were separable from the rest, so I would likely recuse from that. If there were somehow an AMPOL 3 where Trump played no more than an ancillary role, then I'd recuse just from any Trump-related aspects, but that seems less likely than a Tree shaping 2. ;)
    • A GENSEX 2, that would depend heavily on what dispute triggered the case. I'm guessing I would wind up recused. But if it were, say, a case primarily about our coverage of LGB people (which is currently under the "broadly construed" part of GENSEX by some admins' interpretations, but a bit ambiguous), or if it were a request to bring paraphilias back under the GENSEX scope, then I don't think there's anything in my editing history that would necessitate a recusal. (N.B.: non-exhaustive list.)
    • An ARBEE 2, it would depend on how much it involved the Russo-Ukrainian War. If it weren't centered around Russia or Ukraine, I could see recusing just with respect to that conflict and related aspects, but I imagine that would probably encompass enough of the case's scope as to make a full recusal the wiser call.
    Sorry if that's not as precise an answer as you were hoping for, but it's hard to say for sure without an exact hypothetical in front of me. ArbCom cases, even ones with broad scopes, are rarely about considering the totality of everything that happens in a topic area, so I'm trying to answer for the range of possibilities. I'm happy to answer more specific hypotheticals if you'd rather.

Questions from Beccaynr[edit]

  2. On October 12, 2022, you proposed a siteban for Athaenara at ANI, which ended with No consensus for a site ban, but administrators are cautioned that responding to an unblock request at your own discretion is likely to be seen as disruptive and additional detail in the closing statement. Because the framing of a proposal can sometimes influence the outcome, and now that there has been some time for reflection after your October 16, 2022 statement on your User page, is there anything you would have written differently in your October 12 proposal?
    I mean, if I'd had some way to predict that Athaenara would go on to use a sockpuppet to propose her own unblock, I guess I would have waited for that to happen, since it makes for a better case to ban. But knowing only what I knew then, I think that I made the best case that could be made. As I said in § Questions from Rschen7754, I think anything along the lines of "Athaenara is a transphobe. Ban her!" would have been disastrous. I laid out why this was an issue of behavior, not just beliefs, both with the dramatic inciting incident and a subtler past history of discrimination. The consensus just wasn't there in the end. But more than 50% supported a siteban, which was close enough to a consensus to merit that caveat in the close, plus a related consensus emerged for a TBAN, so ultimately I think it was a discussion worth having.
  4. The October 16, 2022 statement on your User page seems to contain some strong language directed towards 51 participants in the Athaenara siteban discussion and refers to past discussions with "multiple" administrators. Does anything expressed in this User page statement support recusal from any ArbCom matters?
    As I said in that statement, my quarrel was with Not any one editor of 51, not even the 51 collectively, but our community as a whole. As in § Question from Iridescent above, I don't even remember most of the opposers in the Athaenara ban thread. There's three people who I responded to there in a sufficiently pointed manner that I'd say I'm involved or would appear so, and one of them is someone I'd recuse over at ArbCom regardless because we're off-wiki personal friends (see also § Questions from Joe Roe #1). A lot of people I deeply respect opposed that siteban. Editors can disagree, even strongly, over something, and still respect what one another contribute to the encyclopedia, and that's very much the case with many or even most of the opposers there. What I wrote in that statement above was my more-than-disappointment that we don't yet have a culture here in which conduct like Athaenara's is understood in its proper context—the victimization and alienation of a significant portion of our editors.
    I'm proud to have a track record as a strongly anti-bigotry editor and admin, but I understand that that our handling of hate speech and hateful conduct is an issue far greater than any one editor. I want more community dialogue on how we can understand one another better on that issue. I don't want to punish anyone for having the "wrong opinion", any more than I'd wish to be punished for that. And, finally, people contain multitudes. As mentioned, one of the people I disagreed with most strongly at the siteban thread was someone I consider a personal friend. I didn't like their take there; that doesn't stop us from respecting each other as editors and as people. That's one of those things you get used to on Wikipedia. There's people I'm 100% aligned with in one discussion and 100% opposed to in the next, sometimes even on closely-related topics. Working together to gather the sum of all human knowledge is a good way to learn that people are complex.

Questions from MrsSnoozyTurtle[edit]

  2. Hello Tamzin. During your dispute with User:Only in death ("OID"), it seems that you accused an IP address of being a sockpuppet and asked OID if they were involved. User:Barkeep49 and User:Worm_That_Turned expressed concerns about this. Can you please explain the reasoning for questioning OID in a public forum instead of using the normal SPI process?
    I don't think I follow the distinction there between "a public forum" and "the normal SPI process". SPI is a public forum, and as an SPI clerk I often have to remind people that it is not the only forum where sockpuppetry can be investigated. Potential sockpuppetry gets discussed at AN/I, at AN, at AE, on users' talkpages, and yes, in ArbCom proceedings. OID made a vague complaint about an obscure, unremarkable action of mine, a few days after an IP did the exact same thing and was then blocked for socking, so I asked if that was his IP. I did so at the same forum because it is a widespread norm on Wikipedia to not split discussions across multiple forums if at all possible, and again, SPI does not have a monopoly on investigating sockpuppetry. As to where WTT and Barkeep got the idea that there's an issue with asking someone if they've loutsocked as a particular IP, I have no idea; you'd have to ask them. Policy says you can't force someone to disclose their IP, but simply asking someone is both allowed and relatively common. It would be rather strange if we forbade that, given that we allow admins to block users based on behavioral findings of loutsocking; why would we say an admin can say "You are IP such-and-such and I am blocking you" but can't ask "Are you IP such-and-such?" Asking, rather than assuming, is polite. We should not encourage people to leap to assumptions. Fortunately, a majority of ArbCom appears to see no issue with asking such a question.
  4. How do your personal beliefs compare with WP:OUTING when it comes to IP sockpuppets?
    I'm not sure I understand this question. All OUTING says about IP sockpuppets is that it's not outing to tie an editor to an IP edit they haven't had oversighted. So to take your question at face value, I agree with that; but I'm guessing you mean something beyond that one clause?
  6. Thank you for your responses. To follow-up question two, yes I should have been more specific sorry. I'm not very experienced in the fine details of the WP:OUTING policy, but I don't see where it states that linking IP sockpuppet edits to a registered account isn't considered to be OUTING.
    Anyway, the question is about OUTING's first paragraph stating that personal information should not be posted, and the second paragraph implies that a registered user's IP address is considered to be personal information (my understanding is that this is why CU investigations that may link a user to an IP address are done in private). What is your opinion on this issue, in particular when an IP is making suspicious edits?
    The relevant provision of OUTING is Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of an editor to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy. So, if User A accidentally edits logged-out as IP X, and User A has that oversighted, and then User B says "Hey everyone! User A's IP is X!", that's outing. If User A intentionally edits logged-out as IP X, and User B is able to piece together that that's the same person, that's not outing, for the simple reason that there's no private information involved. They voluntarily edited in such a way that might link their account to their IP and did not have it oversighted. And any behavioral analysis based on purely public information cannot, as a rule, be outing. Blocks are made all the time connecting IPs to accounts; quarry:query/67186 shows roughly 2 per day in 2022, and that's only counting ones where the other account/IP was wikilinked in the block summary. I'm guessing the real number is more like 4–5/day.
    The rule against tying accounts to IPs with CU is an exception, and it doesn't come from the OUTING policy, but rather from WP:CHECK and from m:OmbCom precedent. It's based on the fact that, in connecting an account to an IP, a checkuser is revealing information that was shared with the WMF under a general expectation of privacy. I very much support that general prohibition, but it's important to remember that it does not apply to information not obtained from the WMF's IP access logs.

Questions from GRuban[edit]

  2. First, have to say, that I love almost everything about your user page, even the revision linked above. You've got ... let's say courage. And that courage makes you forthright about all the areas you'd need to recuse in, which is also a good thing. However ... those are an awful lot of areas. What would you say to someone who is worried that supporting you is basically a support for an arbitration seat that will be vacant due to recusal half the time?
    This is a fun question because, unlike everything else so far, there's a halfway-empirical answer! I'm gonna crunch the numbers on every arbitration matter that has led to a WP:ACN post in 2022 and see whether I would have had to recuse, and if it's anywhere close to 50%, my answer to this question will be "Fair point; I withdraw". Stay tuned...
    [Edit to add] Okay, let's see! (I've skipped clerk appointments, procedural CU/OS changes, wordsmithing amendments, other housekeeping, and any announcements serving as general reminders or announcing the start of a discussion. I've also skipped unblock/unban appeals because it's not always obvious to the public what factors were raised in the relevant discussions.)
    In summation, that comes out to 3 full recusals, a partial recusal, a "partial recusal but it wouldn't have mattered", and a "probably partial recusal that wouldn't have mattered, but would have sought others' opinions as to whether to fully recuse", across 24 cases—effectively, 4 or 5 out of 24. I'm aware that "half" here was likely hyperbolic, but I do hope this assuages concerns. It's worth stressing that, of the 4 or 5, only one has to do with a topic-area-based recusal. It's also worth stressing that only one full recusal would have been from a full-scale case. So, to finally answer your question, what I would say is not to worry about that happening, unless there's a dramatic shift in what kind of cases wind up at ArbCom in the next 1–2 years.
  • (I'm not sure if this needs to be my second question or a follow-up, I'm new here.) Thank you, that detailed count is much more reassuring. I am, however, somewhat worried that you believe our inimitable User:Atsme (whom I am, full disclosure, equally quite fond of) would trigger your Trump-related recusal (American politics 2) but conservative political activist, prominent Trump-endorser and literal airer of Jimbo Wales's dirty laundry (really; I can't make this stuff up ...) Rachel Marsden, would not, though. Would you like to change your answer? --GRuban (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, that's a good point. I wasn't familiar with Marsden's activities since said dirty-laundry incident. So, my recusal as an admin (RfA A18), which I've pledged to carry forward as an arb if elected, is from administrative action in disputes that substantially pertain to Donald Trump or users who advertise their support for him. The Marsden GS were not over a dispute that relates to Trump, and her article does not mention Trump, and the recision of the GS was procedural in nature, so I don't think a recusal would have been necessary. I would always, however, be open to arguments to the contrary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung[edit]

  2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?
    The Committee should not make FoFs asserting things it cannot verify. In rare cases it may make sense to note the existence of an allegation that could not be verified, for context as part of a larger dispute; but the lack of verification must be made clear (e.g. Alice says her comment toward Bob was in response to an insulting email he had sent her, which he denies sending. ArbCom was unable to verify or falsify that Bob sent the email in question).
  4. In your opinion, are sitting arbitrators exempt from due process if and when they commit an indiscretion that would get a normal editor blocked or sanctioned?
    No.

Thank you for your answers. I asked all candidates the same questions. The one word for Q2 was all I needed, and thank you for that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ZaniGiovanni[edit]

  2. Thank you for your recent efforts of trying to be a an impartial arbiter in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, I appreciate you take time and thought to analyse each convoluted case individually, and make a made-to-fit judgement instead of taking a blanket approach. The AA2 topic faces massive disruption since 2020 war, flooded by nationalist-minded anonymous IPs and social-media-guided meatpuppetry. Standard Wikipedia measures, in the absence of sufficient policing in those articles, frequently fail to prevent this disruption. What is your systematic approach going to be to solve this issue, as an ArbCom member?
    As a DS admin and SPI clerk, I've seen a lot of those issues first-hand, as you know. If elected and given the opportunity to hear a new case involving Armenia/Azerbaijan, my decisionmaking will be informed by that knowledge of how contentious the topic area has become. It's one that suffers from a low number of editors interested who don't have strong personal opinions, and I'd be especially interested to work with other arbs to see if we can come up with any way to encourage new blood in the topic area. But ultimately I can't say what remedies I'd support without there being a concrete case request. I could see situations where I'd support topic-area-level general sanctions, like a 1RR or ECR, but that would depend on what the evidence showed. I could also envision supporting a motion saying that being sanctioned in any of AA2, ARBEE, or ARBKURDS puts someone on "one-strike" status in the other two topic areas, since spillover is becoming a bigger and bigger issue.

Thank you for the thoughtful answer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question from lettherebedarklight[edit]

  2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a better high-school education here than the actual fancy private school I dropped out of, and want to pay that forward to the rest of our readers.

Question from Paradise Chronicle[edit]

  2. Coming from a mistaken site ban (I guess some of the worse a Wikipedia editor can run into) the same month you launch your candidacy to the ArbCom...how can you credibly assure the community that you won't site ban someone mistakenly again as an Arb?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming you're referring to the one-week block of Volunteer Marek (which was not a siteban): I wouldn't trust any candidate who assures you they won't make a bad block at some time in the next two years, any more than if they assured you they won't make a factual error in an article or won't break an important template or make any other of the thousand kinds of mistakes we can make here as editors and admins. What I think I can reasonably assure you is that I won't make that mistake again, because as I said in § Question from EchidnaLives, it's an easy mistake to not make twice. And what I can say is that I've made 1,455 blocks and that only one has ever been overturned on the merits, while dozens have been upheld on appeal; of the four other than Marek to be reviewed at AN(I), one was upheld[1] and three were superseded by sitebans.[2] I hope the totality of my administrative contributions show that I do know what I'm doing with the blocking tool.

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1110 § Uncivil behavior by BrownHairedGirl
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100 § Indef block proposal: SquareInARoundHole, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103 § Persistent disruption by User:CreecregofLife, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1108 § User:LaserLegs

Question from MJL[edit]

  2. Do you feel, with the amount of questions you have received relative to other candidates (more than double for some candidates), that you have had an outsized (and unfair) level of scrutinization? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Atsme[edit]

  2. Will your recusal from be strictly Trump-related or AP2 related? GRuban's ping brought me here, and I think it's important to clarify what he alluded to relative to the (AP2) POV railroading nightmare I experienced, and what constitutes a Trump supporter vs an editor simply doing their job objectively. For the sake of transparency, I supported your adminship but there is a need for you to develop a better understanding of why writing/editing objectively does not constitute being a Trump supporter. Bias and preconceived notions are serious obstacles that prevent objectivity, and we see it in some of our WP editors on both sides. It is equally as harmful to the project, if not more so, to have admins influenced by POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and unacceptable for an arbitrator. Kudos to those who are aware of their biases...but once that cat is out of the bag, it's permanent; therefore, recusal is the only option. One thing I will not do is compromise truth or objectivity, be it as a WP editor, or on a personal level. Article content is supposed to be objective, and that has been made quite clear in our core policies. One of the biggest issues that WP faces today is the lack of objectivity, inadvertent or otherwise, resulting in widespread criticism by mainstream media. WP was recently referred to on social media as a "weapon" and having "lost its objectivity" by highly notable people like Mike Solana and Elon Musk, whose tweets are read by multi-millions of people. Concern is warranted, but we have done nothing substantive to eliminate the problem. It is not as big a priority for me as it would be for you, or was for the current ArbCom who basically chose to maintain the status quo, which was quite disappointing. Since I'm not doing an ACE2022, I will summarize by suggesting that you wait, and gain more experience as an administrator, especially in light of your recent error in judgment. We all make mistakes, most of us learn from them, and over time, we mature and keep getting better at what we love doing. I believe that you will be a good arbitrator after you've gained more experience as an administrator. I'm hoping that happens now for your sake, and not for any other reason. Best wishes, however it turns out. Atsme 💬 📧 16:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your question, Atsme. To be clear, my comment about your political views was based on a recollection that you'd said something on-wiki at some point. (Perhaps I misremembered?) I would never assume that someone supports or opposes a candidate or movement merely based on content edits that they make. I've made my fair share of edits that happened to align with Trump's position on something, when that's what was required by our policies and guidelines. I know what it's like to be accused of some bias because you've sought to improve an article; it's unpleasant, and often betrays, as you say, preconceived notions—I had one editor accuse me of pro-trans bias in a discussion where we were in agreement to not call an article's subject trans.
    So with all that in mind, I'll reiterate what I said to GRuban, which is that my recusal is from disputes that substantially pertain to Donald Trump or users who advertise their support for him, and what I said to BilledMammal, which is that that's almost certainly bound to include any broad dispute in the AMPOL area. But there's lots of conceivable AMPOL disputes that could have nothing to do with Trump—for starters, almost anything about the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administrations. One cannot, from my feelings about Trump, reasonably infer how I feel about, say, the Lewinsky scandal—or for that matter how I feel about hot-button issues like gun control and abortion. There were a number of people at my RfA who made the strange assumption that I was a die-hard Biden supporter. It saddens me that people see politics in such black-and-white terms. Voicing an opinion on one aspect of 2016–present American politics shouldn't force a recusal from 30 years of political developments at the federal, state, and local levels.

Question from Nosebagbear[edit]

  2. During this year, you (and for the clarity of any other readers, myself!) endeavoured to clarify the rules on use and retention of private evidence by administrators. The Community decided it opposed any use of private evidence for non-arb blocks by non-CUOS. Around then, one of the two CUs that does significant amounts of work on the undisclosed paid-editing CU queue indicated that they did not intend to handle the smaller scale queries which would now need to be sent to them in that vein. As you would gain CUOS rights as an arbitrator, would you join those working on this queue should you be elected? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would happily assist in working on that queue.

Questions from Anythingyouwant[edit]

  2. Do you support using juries, consisting of randomly-selected editors, to make many of the banning decisions at Wikipedia? I intensely dislike the current highly-centralized system, which is overworked, underpaid, and often more concerned with ending disputes than with whether that’s done fairly and in keeping with policy. This highly-centralized system is also unduly influenced by a cadre of editors who like to hang out at such proceedings, as well as influenced by hordes of dedicated enemies of the accused who make sure they have lots of input. Also noteworthy is the simple and basic fact that the most effective way for Wikipedia to censor content is to do so indirectly by banning users who favor that content. We can do better than this current system, and a jury of peers would be more deliberative, careful, and even-handed. Right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been hoping for a while to see a good comprehensive AN(I) reform proposal, and would love to be involved in that process if someone gets involved in that process. Juries are a novel idea; I wouldn't necessarily be opposed, but I'd want to hear arguments for and against before !voting. In any event, it's mostly beyond the scope of ArbCom, which only bans a few users per year these days.
  4. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote a significant portion of NOTMANDY, so, I definitely think it is the more correct interpretation.

Questions from ProcrastinatingReader[edit]

  2. Above you say One cannot, from my feelings about Trump, reasonably infer how I feel about, say, the Lewinsky scandal—or for that matter how I feel about hot-button issues like gun control and abortion. Let's assume (for the purpose of this question) that you do have strong feelings on those, or some other issue. Do you think having strong feelings on an issue should bar an admin from taking admin actions in relation to that issue (or articles in that area), even if these opinions/feelings have not been expressed onwiki, and therefore other editors don't know about them? How about drafting/voting on arbitration judgements?
    If someone is able to set aside their views on a subject, merely having those views should generally not preclude them from acting in an adminstrative or arbitator capacity on that topic. To say otherwise would punish people for honesty and assume bad faith of people's commitment to putting Wikipedia's values first. An exception arises if they've expressed their views in the past in such a way as to create an appearance of impropriety—a line I'd generally draw at going beyond a mere factual statement of "I support policy/candidate/party/movement X" and into some sort of advocacy based on that position. (There's also, of course, INVOLVED, but that's a separate basis for recusal.)

Question from Femke[edit]

  2. Being a party to an Arbcom case can be highly stressful. It's no surprise editors often choose to leave the project after an outcome like a warning or desysop. What do you think the committee can and should do to make the experience less painful for involved editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the most important things are maintaining a civil environment in the arbitration process and not letting cases run longer than they need to. I think ArbCom currently does decently on both, but there's room for improvement. I'd like to see ArbCom be stricter about requiring evidence for all claims at the time that they're made, and doing more to filter out the ANI-style peanut-gallery comments that still make their way into the arbitration process at times. As for timing, there's always the challenge of balancing volunteers' time, due process concerns, and timeliness concerns, but I think recent developments with shorter cases have moved in the right direction.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Candidates/Tamzin/Questions&oldid=1125963409"