Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025/Candidates/Asilvering/Questions: Difference between revisions

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

#{{ACE Question

|Q=Your question

|A=}}


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

2. Arbitrators are entrusted with the power to sanction editors, but also to hear appeals of those sanctions. Do you believe that familiarity with the latter is a necessary quality to be a good arbitrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Enby (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. The majority of ArbCom’s workload is in handling private matters, not public ones such as cases. Can you please elaborate on how you will handle the large volume of private work the Committee receives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap’n!}⚓ 00:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Obviously, I can’t answer this one from experience of the arbcom workload itself, nor do I have a clear idea of what this large volume of work contains, beyond “matters that cannot be discussed publicly” and “far fewer block appeals than there used to be”. I’ll have to answer by analogy instead: when I became a checkuser, the checkuser-en and COIVRT ticket queues were roughly four times the size they are now; I believe I cut them down by half in my first weekend. I think I’m up to it. On the other hand, I am somewhat prone to thinking too hard about an answer to a difficult or time-consuming email question, in so doing managing to accidentally convince myself I’ve actually replied to it, and then failing to actually type up an answer and hit ‘send’. I’m aware of this failing and will never be offended to receive pokes about outstanding correspondence; I’m easy to reach on Discord or on my talk page.

6. I’m asking this question of all candidates who have not previously served a term on the Committee. As I noted in my first question, much of the Committee’s work happens behind the scenes. The Committee mailing list thus includes reports about many people, and frank assessments by both non-arbs and arbitrators of the behavior of other editors. Despite admonitions against doing so, there is a sort of macabre temptation for new arbitrators to search their own name in the ArbCom archives. How would you handle finding an unflattering report or frank assessment of you in the archives? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap’n!}⚓ 00:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, I can tell you that my first action upon getting the checkuser goggles was not to look up if I’d been checked before and by whom. (I’m told this is the standard, and am almost ashamed to admit that, not only did it not cross my mind, I didn’t look at all until several people had asked and I became tired of the reaction upon telling them ‘no’.) And I can also tell you that I only looked up the functionary discussion about my CU candidacy after, again, a number of people told me I ought to. (They meant this kindly.) It occurs to me only while typing this response that I never went back to look at the discussion about my sockpuppet investigations clerk application; I still have no idea what anyone said about me then. This is all to say that, while I have many curiosities, this is not one of them. I suspect that I will be immune to this macabre temptation. You may also have gathered from the foregoing that I am someone who finds criticism, in some respects, rather more comfortable than praise. I’ll be fine. 00:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

8. You indicated that you don’t quite understand ArbCom in your candidate statement. What would you do to get up to speed so you could be a fully participating member of the committee, if you were elected. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I assume this refers to I’ve never been on the committee, so I can’t say I have any real idea what those roles are or what is needed.? Emphasis on the real, as in “concrete”. In this sense I don’t think it’s possible for anyone who hasn’t been an arb before to quite understand ArbCom. As for how I’ll get up to speed: I learn fast, I ask lots of questions, and I don’t hesitate to roll up my sleeves and get to work. I think you got to see some of this when you did my CU onboarding. I’ve since gotten to know the process quite well. As with the previous question: I’ll be fine. 05:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

10. The Arbitration Policy says To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users is one of the duties and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee. In what ways do you see ArbCom following or not following the duty and responsibility it has in this way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s difficult to comment on that from the outside looking in, and I’m not sure what arbcom could meaningfully do to become more transparent in this regard, since I assume many of the appeals arbs deal with are private for good reason. I’m glad checkuser appeals have been devolved to the regular unblocks process; it’s hard to believe that only happened recently. Most of those appeals don’t even meaningfully require a checkuser’s input, except to give the final assent; I handled many of these before I became a checkuser myself. Actually, I think in most cases it’s helpful if a checkuser doesn’t get involved until the last minute. Non-checkusers can build a different kind of rapport, and ask different sorts of questions, than those of us who’ve been poisoned by a look at the technical data and have the unfortunate position of having to deliver the hard ‘no’. If you’re an administrator reading this, I strongly encourage you give them a try at CAT:RFU. You may be surprised at how far you can get. 02:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

12. Thank you for standing as a candidate. Please describe the characteristics that you believe make for an effective arbitrator. Please describe the characteristics from that list that you possess, and identify the ones that you do not possess. (Note that it is impossible for any one person to have all of the characteristics that would make for an ideal arbitrator; it would be surprising if you were unable to identify any such characteristics that you do not personally have.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14. Recently, the Arbitration Committee took the extraordinary step of consenting to the public release by an individual arbitrator of information shared by the WMF in confidence (including by breaking the ANPDP [Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy]) in relation to the WCNA incident. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that the Committee should publish material that was (a) shared with the Committee in confidence and/or (b) prohibited from disclosure under the Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16. While most editors could simply walk away from a dispute whenever they choose, arbitrators have to work closely with a fairly large team of other people for an extended period of time. They do not get to self-select, they may disagree with each other strongly, and they still have to maintain good working relationships with each other, even under pressure. How do you plan to adapt to this shift in your working environment? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This question can be applied to many aspects of my current job, and as such really would not be a shift in my working environment much at all. I have held several jobs, and had a great many coworkers, most of whom I have gotten along with and none of whom I have murdered, even in extremely high-stress situations in countries with deplorable workers rights legislation. I have organized on many committees, including as chair, and including in situations where we were physically in danger. I am pretty sure that, compared to at least several of these experiences, arbcom will be downright pleasant. 04:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

18. Assume you see an editor who is blatantly POV-pushing. They make sure to always stay within our policies and guidelines, and you can’t find any incriminating evidence against them. They have not edit-warred, have not met the criteria for bludgeoning, have not engaged in personal attacks (they may be the most civil individual you’ve met), have not fabricated sources, and have not publicly or privately stated any intent to push a certain POV. They have a clean block log, and may even have a few good or featured articles under their belt. However, they always vote for the side they support, bending or selectively applying policies to fit their rationale. The community is well-aware of this, but can’t do anything since they haven’t violated any of our policies, and they know that discussing this onwiki would be seen as casting aspersions. You are aware that some community members have left the topic area because of having to deal with this editor (or perhaps several such editors, on all sides). How would you deal with this type of editor as an admin and as an arbitrator? To be absolutely clear, I don’t have anyone in mind. I’m just aware that this is a problem previous committees have tried to tackle with varying levels of success. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20. When, if at all, do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom to sanction or warn a user without a minimal onwiki disclosure of the reasoning? What about ArbCom not disclosing the existence of the sanction or warning at all? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps this is a failure of imagination, but I can’t come up with any reason why it might be appropriate to sanction an editor without on-wiki disclosure. I can see some grounds for a secret warning – for example, if the evidence was something that by definition had to remain private, and disclosing the warning would in effect communicate the evidence – but I would be very hesitant to do this myself, mindful of Moneytrees‘s comments in the transgender healthcare case, that he believed that WP:AE admins would have sanctioned a particular editor more harshly if only they had known that there had been private evidence submitted to arbcom regarding the matter. I think in a roundabout way this has answered your first question: only when really necessary, and only where constrained by non-public information disclosure rules. 19:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22. Do you agree to put Wikipedia readers first in every ARBCOM decision? (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No. I’m sorry, I’ve tried to interpret this question in various ways and come up short; to me it reads as “do you intend to pre-judge cases based on something other than the merits of each individual case”, and the answer to that is no. If this is actually a question about who I think is most important to Wikipedia, well, in this regard I’m a strong collectivist: we are all part of the same ecosystem. I believe very firmly that Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Movement broadly, are greater than the sum of their individual parts, and that each part affects and is affected by the others. Readers are a critical part of our purpose, and they in turn are the source of new editors. I think many editors lose sight of this over time, as they bury themselves deeper into the project. I endeavour not to do so. 19:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
23. Besides all its other duties, ArbCom is sometimes not just a deliberative body, but a representative of the EN-Wikipedia editing community. If you were representing us, what would you say or do about the removal of Lane and Ravan from last month’s WMF board election? —GRuban (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this question may be conflating “WMF staff” with “the WMF board”? It is my understanding (and perhaps this is incorrect, in which case I’d appreciate it if someone more in the know would tell me so) that arbcom does not have any particular pull with or connections to the board of trustees. This is not to mention that I think the community made its outrage quite well known on its own, without any need for the intervention of arbitrators. 20:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)