2020 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 01:40 (UTC), Tuesday, 18 June 2024 (
)
These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2020. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020.
There's a lot to like about Brad, but by far the best is how communicative he's been. He's been honest and open about the Committee and has been an excellent ambassador for ArbCom's work. Likewise when voting on cases/motions/etc., Brad gives a real understanding of the issues at hand, and often I find I learn something just by reading that vote. It's a skill shared by some of the best Arbs I've seen, and I look forward to seeing Brad on the Committee once again. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 12:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to add my enthusiastic endorsement of Bradv for re-election to the Arbitration Committee. I have had the privilege of working with Brad for a while now, as a fellow clerk prior to his election in 2019 and subsequently supporting him as an arbitrator for the past year. Even though I was positive he would be an excellent addition to the committee, he still managed to exceed my high expectations for him. Brad is a fantastic communicator who has something insightful and thought-provoking to say in every discussion, and he brings with him a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of policy and arbitration procedure alongside a strong sense of both fairness and empathy. It's clear to me, and I think to anyone that knows him well, that Brad really means it when he says that he loves this project and is proud of everyone helping to build it. He has both my thanks and my vote. CThomas3 ( talk) 20:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- and therefore leaning to a cold, hard way of reviewing cases without always giving sufficient examination of the veracity of the claims of the original posters or comments by the uninvolved Wikipedia 'governance obsessives' or those with a general disinclination for the somewhat necessary need for administrators. This may work for some cases but not for others, so a lack of consistency. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
'This may work for some cases but not for others...'may even consider them to be a plus point, but the operative word is consistency. There are no rules at ACE that anyone who writes a voter guide or comments in the discussion section needs to have interacted with a candidate. We're talking about you here, not me (you've had your satisfaction already in dealing with me the way you chose). I have concerns in general for years about the role of the Arbitration Committee and hence the people who compose it - which might also include 'governance obsessives' . I am not a spiteful or vindictive person, you have linked to comments of yours, you may now wish to read my voter guide - fully. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"We have a duty to perform a thorough examination of all the facts". Yes, well it wasn't intended to be a reference to my Arbcom case, more an illustration of something he claimed and then, in my opinion - and that of others - didn't honour. Still, as I have also mentioned, Parabolist, he may have some qualities that appeal to voters, but the choice of candidates is not great. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
a veiled personal attack to call me a CREEP—from the context it's patently a reference to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Primefac has forgotten to Wikilink the WP:CREEP acronym. ‑ Iridescent 12:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
"that is not how I initially read it at the time") and coming to the wrong conclusion happens a lot on Wikipeia and its effects can even get admins desysoped. What I was clearly inferring was that anyone who has made 166,361 edits is very likely to have made a misplaced edit, but certainly not to the extent that it should be a deal breaker. There nevertheless appears to be a culture on Wikipedia to criticise or punish hardest those who have worked hardest for the project.. I'll say again that I do not see anything at all in Primefac's history that could even be vaguely construed as an obstacle to a seat on the Committee. Popularity contest notwithstanding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The backbone of the OS team, a brilliant judger of consensus, actively works toward resolutions. Unimpeachable. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 02:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
David Tornheim, you're only allowed to ask two questions. Happy to answer them, but if you could please select which two you'd like me to answer (and remove the others) that would be great. Primefac ( talk) 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand the need to allow people to learn, grow, and recover from being uninformed or wrong. I don't want to hold people's past cluelessness about gender (see Moneytrees' Question 2) against them if they've educated themselves. I was uneducated and clueless myself about gender issues for quite a large % of my life. But I'm concerned, not about the lack of knowledge, but about the smug contempt he obviously held for someone who was part of a hated, marginalized group. Not just being wrong, but casually cruel. "What if they say they're dogs? What if they change their gender every day?" hahaha. hilarious) Punching down. This is not a one-off. It is similar to the smug contempt shown against Eric Corbett during last year's denouement: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive312#Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett. I'm not going to go into Eric's status of saint or sinner, as he is not running for ArbCom. But he and Scottywong were at loggerheads for a long time, and when Eric was down and struggling, Scottywong could have chosen to not get involved. Instead, he inserted himself into a discussion to get one last free kick in. Punching down.
These don't seem like mistakes, but seem to me to be a character flaw. I will not be voting for Scottywong, no matter how many people end up running. Punching down will be even easier from an ArbCom seat. If we end up with very few candidates, I hope others will consider the possibility that "empty seat" is a perfectly acceptable alternative. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Feel Scottywong's heart is in right place but may not have the knack of getting a good outcome. In closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 offered a compromise which while reasonable was only going to result in a car crash with a shedload of information ending up in hades .... Well perhaps in an obscure transwiki archive Plagiarized to an unwitting third party (actually another arbcom candidate) without their consent. I'd note in talk discussions wasn't prepared to deal with functionaries so I could avoid outing personal information if I wanted to request longer than a month. Recent talk page indicates may not be able to identify discretionary sanctions 1RR correctly and couldn't quite figure the laying of a Ds/alert as nomination included reference to politics of United States. Heart in right place though. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
stuff as any kind of deal-breaker, and am quite happy to say so. The candidate clearly understands that the purpose of a Ds/alert is simply to ensure awareness that DS applies to a particular topic area, and does not constitute a threat, accusation, warning, questioning of propriety, etc. And he says explicitly that he knows anyone may leave a Ds/alert for anyone else, at will, even if the intent of the template is to ensure awareness on the part of those directly participating recently in the applicable
AC/DS-affected topic. He simply and calmly inquired as to why you thought he needed to receive that particular one, which is a reasonable thing to ask. I found your tone in your responses to him there unnecessarily combative, twice: "Nope, you've got that wrong. I am triggered by ..." (something that should not have triggered anyone or anything), and "That misrepresentation is for others to judge if necessary" (when there is no misinterpretation of anything by Scottywong demonstrated by what he wrote). Your accusation above that he challenged whether you were acting in good faith is a false accusation by you and should be retracted. (Unless I'm missing some "smoking gun" interaction about this, to which you have not linked.) If he had in fact reacted to the notice as if it were a threat or attack, one might argue that it's effectively an automatic disqualifier for an ArbCom candidate, given that Arbs have to understand everything about DS. But nothing like that actually happened, and it's alarming to me that you are blowing this accusatory smoke. I definitely "see [your] comment here as inappropriate", at least in that part. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I just reblocked Dutchy85 for copyright violations. The almost 10k edits they've made since the unblock will have to be added to their CCI ( Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dutchy85, which is just page one), making an already large one even bigger. This is exactly what I feared would happen when they were unblocked, and what I was trying to get at in my first question. I don't know what to say other than that I'm annoyed that me and others will have to spend several more hours cleaning up a mess that could have been prevented. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk🌴 Help out at CCI! 05:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Maxim has been a productive member of the Arbitration Committee over this past year. The community would be well served giving them another full term. Mkdw talk 03:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Would also like to point people to these comments at User talk:MJL/Electoral Guide/2020#Maxim where three others on the committee also noted Maxim's activity behind the scenes. Mkdw talk 16:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 is one of the Wikipedians that I admire most on this project. He is responsible, thoughtful, and careful. He handles difficult situations with aplomb and willingly does the right thing over the easy thing every time. He hears out folks who disagree with him, and when he realizes he's wrong he changes his mind immediately. He is a skilled mediator; when you talk with him he makes you feel heard. He never speaks before thinking and that's why I trust him implicitly. I have nothing but good things to say about him, and I hope everyone joins me in voting for him. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Last year, I was one of the people who persuaded Barkeep49 to run; I thought they were a very good candidate then, and after a year of further admin experience, I am even more convinced of it. Risker ( talk) 20:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I put a Costco Bear in barkeep49's sandbox and he deleted the sandbox! That's the only reason I can think of for someone not supporting his candidacy. He would be an excellent arbitrator. Natureium ( talk) 20:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
As above, Barkeep is an absolute joy to have around. Every time he participates in a discussion, it's guaranteed to be a thoughtful, considered, and valuable contribution. Never an overharsh word, he's got a perfect temperament for ArbCom. He's rapidly benefited every area he's worked in, and embarrasses amazes me with how quick he learns. He's just as quick to recognize, apologize, and learn from a mistake. Ideal Committee member. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 12:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Having gotten to know Barkeep49 fairly well, it's completely obvious to me that he is going to be an outstanding addition to the arbitration team. Over the past couple of years, we've all watched him become one of the most trusted and respected voices on the project. He is a skilled mediator, a brilliant evaluator of consensus, and a natural leader. I don't know that I know of anyone who cares about the project more than he does, and I'm thrilled that he's decided to run for the committee. This is an easy choice for me. CThomas3 ( talk) 20:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing much to express toward this user, but he will surely do good as far as what I have seen with him is concern. An@ss_koko (speak up) 10:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I left Barkeep a good luck message on their talkpage: [1], and they have asked me to comment here. I feel that Barkeep49 would be an asset to the Committee if elected, as they have demonstrated a thoughtful and balanced approach in their dealings around the project. SilkTork ( talk) 15:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I have served for the past four years on the Arbitration Committee. During that time, I have worked closely with Kevin ( L235) who serves as an Arbitration Committee clerk. I can genuinely say that getting to know Kevin and working together has been one of the highlights. There have been some very intense and stressful situations that the committee and clerking team have had to navigate and Kevin has always conducted himself in a professional and thoughtful way. I have been asking Kevin about whether he would ever consider running for ArbCom and I am very pleased to see his name among the candidates. Mkdw talk 22:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
L235 is, at this point, probably the non-arb with the best understanding of the process. I think it's valuable to have new, fresh members as well as those who know how the thing works; it's rare to get both in one person. Kev is obviously thoughtful, even-tempered, and always considerate, and would be a fabulous addition to the Committee; the only downside would be losing a titan of a clerk. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I have had the distinct pleasure of working alongside Kevin as a fellow clerk for the past year and a half, and I can say with certainty that he will be a tremendous addition to the Arbitration Committee. Kevin is extremely intelligent, with a good head on his shoulders and an even better heart. There isn't anyone I know who understands the process of arbitration more thoroughly; this knowledge will be a valuable asset fo the Arbitration team, but I were to choose Kevin's best qualities, I'd have to go with his compassion, his clarity of thought, and his commitment to teamwork. Kevin always has something insightful to add to every discussion, and I feel like I learn something every time we interact. I'll be bummed to lose him from the clerk team, but Wikipedia will be much better served with Kevin on the Committee instead. I hope you'll join me in voting for him. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Repeating here what I said on L235's talkpage: Good luck in the election. I feel you should get in, and that would be very healthy for the Committee as you would bring a lot of experience and insight of clerking cases. I also like your intention to look into reforming DS. SilkTork ( talk) 11:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought up that issue with DS. It's something I've been aware of but not steeped in; something on the radar but examined in detail. You might know I've done quite a pile of DS-problems cataloguing, and this one is missing from my list, for lacking the details and nuances. Glad someone's running who groks those details will fullness. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In response to
my question, Hawkeye7 asked a question of me - so I thought I'd carry on the discussion here, hopefully
Hawkeye7 will join me
Hawkeye, you say that you were oblivious to the wider political implications, the "long term saga" as you put it, but I find that hard to believe. Your block reason was "long term abuse"
[2], acknowledging that there was history. You'd commented - four times
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] - at the ANI just prior to the block. To be clear - this is what the ANI thread looked like at the point that your re-instated the block
[7]. I'm concerned that you see a consensus for the original block in that discussion - I see a firm consensus against the block. Perhaps you could point me to where the "collective decision" was taken?
I will point out that my name also appears in that block log as a blocking admin.
[8] though context matters. You'll also recall that I supported your
2016 RfA and suggested Arbcom made a "
water under the bridge" statement. In the RfA, you were more clear with the community, you said "I misjudged the situation, and I mishandled it", I feel that your current attitude is one that holds less accountability.
Now, to your point, on whether Arbcom should make decisions on a political calculus - I cannot remember arguing either way on that previously, though I may well have. To clarify, I'm talking about wiki-politics - i.e. the activities associated with the governance of Wikipedia - since Wikipedia terms are often...
contradictory to normal language. Arbcom and its members are in the unique position of being able to have a genuine influence on the governance of Wikipedia, whilst we cannot create policy, we can interpret how it should be applied. In doing so, we should be able to hear what the community wants and make our decisions with that in mind.
WormTT(
talk) 13:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that having at least one non-admin at the table is warranted, you could almost say necessary. In fact, that's what probably impresses me most about this candidate: being bold enough to throw his hat in the ring without the 'perceived qualifications'. Being unfamiliar with past and present ArbCom members, it would be interesting to know how many have been non-admins. RandomGnome ( talk) 04:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@ RandomGnome: The answer is technically, one, but really, zero. (one member was voluntarily desysopped and asked for the tools back upon being elected.) It's not impossible but it is unlikely. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the way Hawkeye7 raised the desysopping and how Hawkeye7 addressed the concerns here. I am satisfied with the answers provided, which I take to be a pretty direct acceptance both of the initial situation ten years ago and of concerns people may have with them running for arbcom now. Frankly, I think it's commendable that Hawkeye7 is putting their name forward now and remains happy to serve. Nobody's obligated to agree with me, but Hawkeye7 has my support. -- Yamla ( talk) 20:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7: Being a candidate, I wouldn't post my own question on your Q&A page (not verboten, but surely gauche). However, I have to suggest revisiting your reply to Dicklyon. (Though I s'pose that you not doing so would actually help me as a competitor! Heh.) Your response doesn't make much sense, actually bolsters his concerns, and ends with statements that are apt to be taken as unbecoming/disqualifying.
To spell it out:
|
---|
|
I'm not trying to start a "threaded debate" here (do candidates ever do that?), this is just a word to the wise, which you can consider or ignore. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe, as I think most of us do, that Eek is a fundamentally good person and valuable editor. I thank them for stepping up and volunteering.
There are some things in Eek’s responses to my questions that give me pause when I try to envision how they’ll handle Arbcom cases. First, there is the question of follow-through on their RfA commitment: Eek had made a key pledge in the midst of their RfA to revisit their past AfC declines, and it appears from their answers that they did very little of that in the six months that followed. Eek indicates that were hundreds of drafts that they had declined or draftified, that they did not review until this week. I’m glad that they eventually got to those hundreds of drafts; I’m disappointed that it took an Arbcom candidacy Q&A to nudge them into getting it done.
Another issue is Eek’s continued defense of their decision to draftify or decline Danish collaborator trials and Kirchner v. Venus (1859). Both of these articles would have survived AfD, both are good for the encyclopedia, and neither showed any signs of COI. So why is it better for the encyclopedia if they are deleted? That, not whether there is a justification for deletion, is the question.
Finally, back to Eek’s draftication of Danish collaborator trials: Eek was surprised that when they draftified a 12-minute-old article, the article creator stopped working on it and the article ended up being G13d. Those were unintended consequences, but they are thoroughly foreseeable ones. Arbitrators have far-reaching influence over the dynamics of the project and need to be highly skilled in thinking through the unintended consequences of their decisions. Unintended consequences after well-meaning decisions are perhaps the main reason to value experience in Arbcom candidates.
I do believe Eek could possibly be a good arbitrator, but personally I’ll vote for a different seven candidates this time. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 06:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
My interactions with CaptainEek have been completely positive. Under tense discussions, I have only seen this editor being impartial, rational, and very reasonable, which is exactly what ArbCom needs. ~ HAL 333 23:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
"If a user sees an admin or another power user routinely flying in the face of policy and AN/ANI are not helpful, one can ask ArbCom to take a look at that user's conduct. I, unfortunately, did it earlier this year and it resulted in a case."
Curiously the candidate uses the word unfortunately. One can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I would tend to classify the incident as management obsession, particularly where a situation was almost reaching (or had reached) an acceptable solution in another place. It demonstrates a possible heavy handed attitude in future Arbcom cases were the candidate to be granted a seat on the Committee again, and a continuation of the Committee's apparent new goal to rid the project of otherwise productive and highly experienced users.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 09:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Having seen Guerilleros answer to my question, I can't really elect them. GPinkerton actually adhered to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as the sources are on his side. They are reliable, secondary and also verifiable sources and they give them due weight. Both, he and I are trying to get through with ca. 50 academic sources mentioning or showing a Syrian Kurdistan against some original researchers who claim if some academic writes about a Syrian Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria it means that there exists no Syrian Kurdistan. If Guerillero thinks they are disruptive at the ANI,they could give them an ANI ban for some time in order to have time to think of what they could do better. A straight indef. ban is way too much for an editor active in an area with very low editorial admin activity since months. This is the version of Syrian Kurdistan on the day he became active in the article and this the one after he was active. He sort of doubled the size of the article which I guess is of great service for Wikipedia. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 02:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
You have been quite many times accused as a biased admin who play favourites in AE cases. Your behaviour and attitude is also not fair and on many instances you have taunted other editors because you were an admin. I don't see any good reason for you to be elected in Arbitration Committee. Anyhow may sanity prevail! USaamo ( t@lk) 12:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll pre-answer a probable question: "Why did you throw your hat in right near the deadline?" I've considered running for ArbCom again every year, and was seriously considering it again for next year, but was going to sit this one out. I had assumed that the pandemic would result in various editors having a lot more time on their hands, and thus expected a large number of candidates, but when I thought to check I found very few (fewer than available seats). I've observed ArbCom becomes "non-optimally functional" when short of active and non-recused Arbs, so it seemed pertinent to volunteer this year instead of waiting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: As I've also noted in my replies to some questions that another motivation for going in this year instead of waiting is the unusual number of Arbs and candidates who agree with me that WP:AC/DS is broken and that it at very least needs serious revision. I see an unusual opportunity for an interested caucus of Arbs to make real progress on this for a change. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC); rev'd 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
PPS: On the main 2020 election talk page, Thryduulf asked basically whether late-appearing candidates had some kind of strategic rationale. I can only speak for myself, but the answer is no. Indeed, I'm aware from similar earlier discussions that being a late-arriving candidate actually prejudices some editors to vote negatively for one reason or another. If I had looked in at the candidate page earlier and seen even fewer candidates, I would have stepped up much sooner. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
If I may brainstorm a little on potential ways to actually implement "Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced" – it may require a combo approach like:
Those are just a few off-the-cuff ideas.
How to tackle the "unblockables" problem in earnest will require more detailed community and internal-to-ArbCom discussion, especially since the root of this problem, the "manufacture" of it, is not a fault in ArbCom rules or interpretation, but within community behavior and human nature: cult of personality, admin "brotherhood" factionalism, wikiproject factionalism like "gang" protection of in-group members, WP's aggregate userbase biases making it "okay" to grossly violate policies in pursuit of a popular socio-political viewpoint, etc. It varies by the type of "unblockable" at issue, and there are at least three varieties discussed in the RfC thread. I would say there are five, based specificially on: high-trust permissions (admin/crat), personality (wiki-social popularity), time/quantity of constructive contribution, quality of constructive contribution, and focus of constructive contribution. Plus there's a subclass, the "unbannable" who has been blocked many times but is always back; this is actually much more common that the truly "unblockable". Another subclass the "un-desysopppable".
I'll integrate something I said in my response to Kudpung's Q2: Community noticeboards would benefit from imposition of more posting rules, perhaps adapted from AE which is kind of half-way between RFARB/ARCA rigidity and ANI free-for-all. The generating of several kinds of "unblockables" would likely be short-circuited by community noticeboards no longer permitting endless evidence-free and usually consequence-free ranting. There is already precedent for this; e.g., ANEW already has long had a variety of stringent rules about evidence and what a proper report is and how to format it, and like AE has a history of BOOMERANG being easy to trigger there, while even AN leans much further this direction than ANI or various more specific noticeboards like NORN and NPOVN. A strong structural change to ANI and other "too open" noticeboards would also help solve the "dramaboarding as a spectator and team sport" problem, of abusing these venues as a form of addictive entertainment instead of dispute resolution. This is a long-standing NOTSOCIAL / NOTGAME / NOTFORUM / NOTBATTLEGROUND issue that the community doesn't know how to tackle.
PS: There's also an inverse problem not really addressed by that mega-RfC at all: "too-blockables". Certain sorts of editors are clearly more likely to be blocked or otherwise sanctioned based on what topics they edit, what viewpoints they express, even what kind of work they focus on, as well as for being newish and without much of a track record, among other "criteria". That's a whole different can of worms, though (and A7V2 has already asked a separate question about this). Another obvious-not-obvious point: we should not take this RfC as a mandate to accept "finally getting to going after" supposed unblockables simply because they've been seen that way. Any case brought must raise an ongoing problem/recent incident, not attempt to just relitigate old news. This is also a
double-jeopardy matter; the fact that the community declined to sanction, or effectively-enough sanction, in reaction to an old incident is already a done deal. Cf. the principle that remedies must be preventative not just punitive.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlike any other venue on the Internet, every Wikipedia user has the scope to be a 'governance obsessive' - and it's an activity some of them relish as seen by the speed in which some newbies post the 'I wanna be an admin someday' userbox to their user pages. ANI, the corps of a sysops, and the Arbitration Committtee are peppered with amateur litigators (fortunately there are sometimes some professional lawyers on the Committees) who like to feel important and will gladly issue a purely punitive remedy that has little to do with prevention. For some strata of users this is even without a course of appeal to the Arbcom or a body of even higher instance - a true Supreme Court which would rule not only on the relevant policies, but also fully (re)examine the evidence and facts of a case. Indeed, one of the problems of Arbcom is that any number of members are able to recuse themselves or be on a leave of absence where the remaining active arbitrators are barely a serious quorum.
SMcCandlish has some excellent ideas how all these issues could be addressed but this is not the venue to do so. Not being an admin may well unfortunately prevent a successful bid for a seat on the Committee, but I would heartily encourage him to take the incentive to initiate formal discussion towards the badly needed reforms. None of it will bother me personally, but Wikipedia isn't going to close down any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
; or B) have that template (with correct topical parameter) automatically delivered by bot to any editor who non-trivially edits in a DS-covered topic area, so that awareness is ensured and the template cannot be mistaken for a threat from another editor trying to get the upper-hand, or an allegation of wrongdoing by an admin without any actual evidence. The RfC concluded with over 50% support, and the vast majority of opposition (probably over 90% of it) was based simply in the assumption that the community cannot tell ArbCom what to do with its own templates, which both missed the point and is not actually true (the community sets ArbCom policy). The community could force ArbCom to change this stuff but won't, due to
FUD about ArbCom's bureaucracy. ArbCom, though, can itself make such changes, so it appears more practical to get ArbCom to change it from within. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)I can't mind-read the full intent of the question, of course. Maybe it includes a notion like "How can you assess a desysopping case if you've never been in admin shoes?" I already have and use most of the advanced permissions that have been "unbundled" from admin, including the high-risk (of badly breaking things) template-editor and (in potential community drama) page-mover. The effective fact is that INVOLVED, ADMINCOND, and related policies apply "and then some" to their use, because of their admin origin and community expectations about their use, and because the threshold for having these bits taken away is much lower (anything that smacks of abuse can be cause for WP:AN to revoke such a permission without much of a hearing). Admins are not, as a matter of procedure and rules, treated differently by ArbCom than other parties (though this RfC seems to have reached the conclusion that they have sometimes received subjective favoritism in whether a case would be accepted or a remedy applied). ArbCom is already notoriously difficult to persuade to even consider a potential desysopping, so there is no need for it to be more protective of admins. Indeed, there's a fairly common everday-editor view that ArbCom is basically a board of admins mainly there to shield other admins and help them sanction everyone else. I don't believe that's a correct assessment, but it's an "optics" and community-faith problem nonetheless, with the really obvious (and easily-fixed) cause, of ArbCom usually being only admins.
If anything, the fact that most Arbs are admins, and most admins reduce their content focus and just-an-editor interaction with others, as they get increasingly involved in administrative roles (and a few Arbs have further become like "career politicians", doing ArbCom over and over and over despite it consuming most of their available wiki-time), suggests that the Committee needs more non-admins for balance. Cf. frequent RfA opposition on the basis that a candidate doesn't do enough content work and spends too much time in dramaboards; it's the exact same concern applied to a different role candidacy. Maybe the better question for the community is, "How do we feel that ArbCom can properly discharge its project-protective roles when most of its members have less and less connection over time to the work of and issues faced by everyday editors achieving the project's actual encyclopedia-building mission?" See also WMF's eventual decision (years ago under community pressure) that it needed community-selected board members (and see recent outrage from editors that a draft revision of that bylaw would no longer require the community-selected ones to be the majority). It's essentially the same representativeness concern, just shifted upward a meta-level. ArbCom is in fact really weird for usually not containing any non-admins, and I hope to help crack the artificial ceiling open a bit more, to the community's and project's benefit.
Another possible meaning in your question is "If you're not an admin, why should we think you understand policy well?". My previous answers to questions above have gotten into my policy analysis, shepherding, and interpretation work in some detail. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A latent sub-question in this is: When does a conduct dispute become a conduct dispute for ArbCom? That's generally only after community DR mechanisms have already been exhausted (or cannot apply, e.g. because the conduct disruption is transgressing ArbCom-imposed restrictions, because it involves a desysop request, etc.). Another embedded query of sorts is: When is an RS-related dispute in particular not a conduct dispute despite conduct issues being raised? In short, when the dispute is primarily about content (source reliability, source existence, whether the source actually verifies the claim, etc.), and the behavioral complaints are incidental. (Or confused/specious, e.g. "won't stop citing sources I consider unreliable" is not a behavior dispute). However, it is often the case that protracted conflicts will result in content and conduct issues both arising sufficiently that they're independently disruptive and must be addressed. This requires they be handled separately, e.g. the one at RSN or NORN and the other at ANI or ultimately an ArbCom venue. Sometimes back-to-back or even concurrently. E.g., I'm strongly reminded of various "your ethnicity/religion/country/etc. versus mine" ugliness, the sordid "e-cigs" saga, modern American politics edit-and-flame wars, etc., which have all involved numerous content noticeboards and multiple behavioral noticeboardings and ArbCom, often involving the same parties. It can be a slow and even frustrating process, but it is one of our separation-of-powers safeguards against things like an institutional "viewpoint cabal" and so on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Some candidates got this question, and I didn't. But I found it fascinating, so I'm stealing it. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Conjoined twins (CTs) come in all sorts. I believe those of the Chang and Eng Bunker type, who are near-totally independent, would have to be considered separate editors, with a need to take turns at different accounts while editing (or use separate laptops simultaneously, or something to that effect). However, there are also CTs who directly share brain matter, fused at the head, and who do not always have entirely separate consciousness (often one is overwhelmingly dominant). We would often likely conclude to treat them as a single editor. In this specific hypothetical case, there's evidence of both independent and coordinated cognition, so I think it would come down to a specific determination about that case, with consideration given to the impact of various possible outcomes on the editor[s].
If their normal operation mode while writing really were an indistinct "commingled-I", then they could probably be permitted to retain a single account, but be barred from using it to present Abby-says-versus-Brittany-says dual input, which would definitely be two people using the same account, and confusing to other editors, to WP:CLOSE consensus assessments, etc. I.e., to keep a single account, they would need to privately come to a personal consensus on what to say before posting it, or remain silent on the matter, any time their commingled-I were to separate more clearly producing dissonance between them.
If their normal mode while writing were in a two-distinct-minds vein, they should use different accounts, but also be instructed not to use them to vote-stack by twice presenting one of their occasional commingled-I viewpoints as if it were two individuals separately coming to the same conclusion (whichever one first posted the commingled-I stance would be the only one to say it). It would be fine for both accounts to !vote in an RfC or whatever, whether they agreed or not, as long as they where independently reasoned (though probably mutually well-discussed) decisions.
There would of course be no way to absolutely enforce either of these, or even be 100% certain their self-reported descriptions of their mental separateness/coordination were accurate. But either version of these approaches would be a way to adapt policy to suit their unusual circumstance and keep them as editors/an editor in good standing. They would be the community taking in good faith how their mind[s] work, and them in turn agreeing in good faith not to game the system. Since the Hensels do have separate brains and spinal columns, and their coordination is thus a learned (albeit ingrained from infancy, developmentally-shaping) adaptation, I would expect that the second approach (separate accounts) would be the result, even if I think the opposite would likely result in many cases of CTs with fused skulls and direct brain/cognition overlap. PS: This is all assuming the community did not just update the policy to say something about this; I'm presuming ArbCom has been left to interpret and try to apply existing policy. PPS: I would normally have had some misgivings about discussing the Hensels in this way, but they have made public speculation about and understanding of their CT experience central to their actual lives, though various TV shows, etc., that they have long participated in. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
2020 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 01:40 (UTC), Tuesday, 18 June 2024 (
)
These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2020. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020.
There's a lot to like about Brad, but by far the best is how communicative he's been. He's been honest and open about the Committee and has been an excellent ambassador for ArbCom's work. Likewise when voting on cases/motions/etc., Brad gives a real understanding of the issues at hand, and often I find I learn something just by reading that vote. It's a skill shared by some of the best Arbs I've seen, and I look forward to seeing Brad on the Committee once again. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 12:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to add my enthusiastic endorsement of Bradv for re-election to the Arbitration Committee. I have had the privilege of working with Brad for a while now, as a fellow clerk prior to his election in 2019 and subsequently supporting him as an arbitrator for the past year. Even though I was positive he would be an excellent addition to the committee, he still managed to exceed my high expectations for him. Brad is a fantastic communicator who has something insightful and thought-provoking to say in every discussion, and he brings with him a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of policy and arbitration procedure alongside a strong sense of both fairness and empathy. It's clear to me, and I think to anyone that knows him well, that Brad really means it when he says that he loves this project and is proud of everyone helping to build it. He has both my thanks and my vote. CThomas3 ( talk) 20:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- and therefore leaning to a cold, hard way of reviewing cases without always giving sufficient examination of the veracity of the claims of the original posters or comments by the uninvolved Wikipedia 'governance obsessives' or those with a general disinclination for the somewhat necessary need for administrators. This may work for some cases but not for others, so a lack of consistency. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
'This may work for some cases but not for others...'may even consider them to be a plus point, but the operative word is consistency. There are no rules at ACE that anyone who writes a voter guide or comments in the discussion section needs to have interacted with a candidate. We're talking about you here, not me (you've had your satisfaction already in dealing with me the way you chose). I have concerns in general for years about the role of the Arbitration Committee and hence the people who compose it - which might also include 'governance obsessives' . I am not a spiteful or vindictive person, you have linked to comments of yours, you may now wish to read my voter guide - fully. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"We have a duty to perform a thorough examination of all the facts". Yes, well it wasn't intended to be a reference to my Arbcom case, more an illustration of something he claimed and then, in my opinion - and that of others - didn't honour. Still, as I have also mentioned, Parabolist, he may have some qualities that appeal to voters, but the choice of candidates is not great. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
a veiled personal attack to call me a CREEP—from the context it's patently a reference to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Primefac has forgotten to Wikilink the WP:CREEP acronym. ‑ Iridescent 12:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
"that is not how I initially read it at the time") and coming to the wrong conclusion happens a lot on Wikipeia and its effects can even get admins desysoped. What I was clearly inferring was that anyone who has made 166,361 edits is very likely to have made a misplaced edit, but certainly not to the extent that it should be a deal breaker. There nevertheless appears to be a culture on Wikipedia to criticise or punish hardest those who have worked hardest for the project.. I'll say again that I do not see anything at all in Primefac's history that could even be vaguely construed as an obstacle to a seat on the Committee. Popularity contest notwithstanding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The backbone of the OS team, a brilliant judger of consensus, actively works toward resolutions. Unimpeachable. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 02:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
David Tornheim, you're only allowed to ask two questions. Happy to answer them, but if you could please select which two you'd like me to answer (and remove the others) that would be great. Primefac ( talk) 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand the need to allow people to learn, grow, and recover from being uninformed or wrong. I don't want to hold people's past cluelessness about gender (see Moneytrees' Question 2) against them if they've educated themselves. I was uneducated and clueless myself about gender issues for quite a large % of my life. But I'm concerned, not about the lack of knowledge, but about the smug contempt he obviously held for someone who was part of a hated, marginalized group. Not just being wrong, but casually cruel. "What if they say they're dogs? What if they change their gender every day?" hahaha. hilarious) Punching down. This is not a one-off. It is similar to the smug contempt shown against Eric Corbett during last year's denouement: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive312#Further attempts to bait Eric Corbett. I'm not going to go into Eric's status of saint or sinner, as he is not running for ArbCom. But he and Scottywong were at loggerheads for a long time, and when Eric was down and struggling, Scottywong could have chosen to not get involved. Instead, he inserted himself into a discussion to get one last free kick in. Punching down.
These don't seem like mistakes, but seem to me to be a character flaw. I will not be voting for Scottywong, no matter how many people end up running. Punching down will be even easier from an ArbCom seat. If we end up with very few candidates, I hope others will consider the possibility that "empty seat" is a perfectly acceptable alternative. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Feel Scottywong's heart is in right place but may not have the knack of getting a good outcome. In closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 offered a compromise which while reasonable was only going to result in a car crash with a shedload of information ending up in hades .... Well perhaps in an obscure transwiki archive Plagiarized to an unwitting third party (actually another arbcom candidate) without their consent. I'd note in talk discussions wasn't prepared to deal with functionaries so I could avoid outing personal information if I wanted to request longer than a month. Recent talk page indicates may not be able to identify discretionary sanctions 1RR correctly and couldn't quite figure the laying of a Ds/alert as nomination included reference to politics of United States. Heart in right place though. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
stuff as any kind of deal-breaker, and am quite happy to say so. The candidate clearly understands that the purpose of a Ds/alert is simply to ensure awareness that DS applies to a particular topic area, and does not constitute a threat, accusation, warning, questioning of propriety, etc. And he says explicitly that he knows anyone may leave a Ds/alert for anyone else, at will, even if the intent of the template is to ensure awareness on the part of those directly participating recently in the applicable
AC/DS-affected topic. He simply and calmly inquired as to why you thought he needed to receive that particular one, which is a reasonable thing to ask. I found your tone in your responses to him there unnecessarily combative, twice: "Nope, you've got that wrong. I am triggered by ..." (something that should not have triggered anyone or anything), and "That misrepresentation is for others to judge if necessary" (when there is no misinterpretation of anything by Scottywong demonstrated by what he wrote). Your accusation above that he challenged whether you were acting in good faith is a false accusation by you and should be retracted. (Unless I'm missing some "smoking gun" interaction about this, to which you have not linked.) If he had in fact reacted to the notice as if it were a threat or attack, one might argue that it's effectively an automatic disqualifier for an ArbCom candidate, given that Arbs have to understand everything about DS. But nothing like that actually happened, and it's alarming to me that you are blowing this accusatory smoke. I definitely "see [your] comment here as inappropriate", at least in that part. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I just reblocked Dutchy85 for copyright violations. The almost 10k edits they've made since the unblock will have to be added to their CCI ( Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dutchy85, which is just page one), making an already large one even bigger. This is exactly what I feared would happen when they were unblocked, and what I was trying to get at in my first question. I don't know what to say other than that I'm annoyed that me and others will have to spend several more hours cleaning up a mess that could have been prevented. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk🌴 Help out at CCI! 05:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Maxim has been a productive member of the Arbitration Committee over this past year. The community would be well served giving them another full term. Mkdw talk 03:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Would also like to point people to these comments at User talk:MJL/Electoral Guide/2020#Maxim where three others on the committee also noted Maxim's activity behind the scenes. Mkdw talk 16:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 is one of the Wikipedians that I admire most on this project. He is responsible, thoughtful, and careful. He handles difficult situations with aplomb and willingly does the right thing over the easy thing every time. He hears out folks who disagree with him, and when he realizes he's wrong he changes his mind immediately. He is a skilled mediator; when you talk with him he makes you feel heard. He never speaks before thinking and that's why I trust him implicitly. I have nothing but good things to say about him, and I hope everyone joins me in voting for him. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Last year, I was one of the people who persuaded Barkeep49 to run; I thought they were a very good candidate then, and after a year of further admin experience, I am even more convinced of it. Risker ( talk) 20:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I put a Costco Bear in barkeep49's sandbox and he deleted the sandbox! That's the only reason I can think of for someone not supporting his candidacy. He would be an excellent arbitrator. Natureium ( talk) 20:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
As above, Barkeep is an absolute joy to have around. Every time he participates in a discussion, it's guaranteed to be a thoughtful, considered, and valuable contribution. Never an overharsh word, he's got a perfect temperament for ArbCom. He's rapidly benefited every area he's worked in, and embarrasses amazes me with how quick he learns. He's just as quick to recognize, apologize, and learn from a mistake. Ideal Committee member. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 12:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Having gotten to know Barkeep49 fairly well, it's completely obvious to me that he is going to be an outstanding addition to the arbitration team. Over the past couple of years, we've all watched him become one of the most trusted and respected voices on the project. He is a skilled mediator, a brilliant evaluator of consensus, and a natural leader. I don't know that I know of anyone who cares about the project more than he does, and I'm thrilled that he's decided to run for the committee. This is an easy choice for me. CThomas3 ( talk) 20:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing much to express toward this user, but he will surely do good as far as what I have seen with him is concern. An@ss_koko (speak up) 10:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I left Barkeep a good luck message on their talkpage: [1], and they have asked me to comment here. I feel that Barkeep49 would be an asset to the Committee if elected, as they have demonstrated a thoughtful and balanced approach in their dealings around the project. SilkTork ( talk) 15:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I have served for the past four years on the Arbitration Committee. During that time, I have worked closely with Kevin ( L235) who serves as an Arbitration Committee clerk. I can genuinely say that getting to know Kevin and working together has been one of the highlights. There have been some very intense and stressful situations that the committee and clerking team have had to navigate and Kevin has always conducted himself in a professional and thoughtful way. I have been asking Kevin about whether he would ever consider running for ArbCom and I am very pleased to see his name among the candidates. Mkdw talk 22:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
L235 is, at this point, probably the non-arb with the best understanding of the process. I think it's valuable to have new, fresh members as well as those who know how the thing works; it's rare to get both in one person. Kev is obviously thoughtful, even-tempered, and always considerate, and would be a fabulous addition to the Committee; the only downside would be losing a titan of a clerk. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I have had the distinct pleasure of working alongside Kevin as a fellow clerk for the past year and a half, and I can say with certainty that he will be a tremendous addition to the Arbitration Committee. Kevin is extremely intelligent, with a good head on his shoulders and an even better heart. There isn't anyone I know who understands the process of arbitration more thoroughly; this knowledge will be a valuable asset fo the Arbitration team, but I were to choose Kevin's best qualities, I'd have to go with his compassion, his clarity of thought, and his commitment to teamwork. Kevin always has something insightful to add to every discussion, and I feel like I learn something every time we interact. I'll be bummed to lose him from the clerk team, but Wikipedia will be much better served with Kevin on the Committee instead. I hope you'll join me in voting for him. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Repeating here what I said on L235's talkpage: Good luck in the election. I feel you should get in, and that would be very healthy for the Committee as you would bring a lot of experience and insight of clerking cases. I also like your intention to look into reforming DS. SilkTork ( talk) 11:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought up that issue with DS. It's something I've been aware of but not steeped in; something on the radar but examined in detail. You might know I've done quite a pile of DS-problems cataloguing, and this one is missing from my list, for lacking the details and nuances. Glad someone's running who groks those details will fullness. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In response to
my question, Hawkeye7 asked a question of me - so I thought I'd carry on the discussion here, hopefully
Hawkeye7 will join me
Hawkeye, you say that you were oblivious to the wider political implications, the "long term saga" as you put it, but I find that hard to believe. Your block reason was "long term abuse"
[2], acknowledging that there was history. You'd commented - four times
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] - at the ANI just prior to the block. To be clear - this is what the ANI thread looked like at the point that your re-instated the block
[7]. I'm concerned that you see a consensus for the original block in that discussion - I see a firm consensus against the block. Perhaps you could point me to where the "collective decision" was taken?
I will point out that my name also appears in that block log as a blocking admin.
[8] though context matters. You'll also recall that I supported your
2016 RfA and suggested Arbcom made a "
water under the bridge" statement. In the RfA, you were more clear with the community, you said "I misjudged the situation, and I mishandled it", I feel that your current attitude is one that holds less accountability.
Now, to your point, on whether Arbcom should make decisions on a political calculus - I cannot remember arguing either way on that previously, though I may well have. To clarify, I'm talking about wiki-politics - i.e. the activities associated with the governance of Wikipedia - since Wikipedia terms are often...
contradictory to normal language. Arbcom and its members are in the unique position of being able to have a genuine influence on the governance of Wikipedia, whilst we cannot create policy, we can interpret how it should be applied. In doing so, we should be able to hear what the community wants and make our decisions with that in mind.
WormTT(
talk) 13:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that having at least one non-admin at the table is warranted, you could almost say necessary. In fact, that's what probably impresses me most about this candidate: being bold enough to throw his hat in the ring without the 'perceived qualifications'. Being unfamiliar with past and present ArbCom members, it would be interesting to know how many have been non-admins. RandomGnome ( talk) 04:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@ RandomGnome: The answer is technically, one, but really, zero. (one member was voluntarily desysopped and asked for the tools back upon being elected.) It's not impossible but it is unlikely. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the way Hawkeye7 raised the desysopping and how Hawkeye7 addressed the concerns here. I am satisfied with the answers provided, which I take to be a pretty direct acceptance both of the initial situation ten years ago and of concerns people may have with them running for arbcom now. Frankly, I think it's commendable that Hawkeye7 is putting their name forward now and remains happy to serve. Nobody's obligated to agree with me, but Hawkeye7 has my support. -- Yamla ( talk) 20:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Hawkeye7: Being a candidate, I wouldn't post my own question on your Q&A page (not verboten, but surely gauche). However, I have to suggest revisiting your reply to Dicklyon. (Though I s'pose that you not doing so would actually help me as a competitor! Heh.) Your response doesn't make much sense, actually bolsters his concerns, and ends with statements that are apt to be taken as unbecoming/disqualifying.
To spell it out:
|
---|
|
I'm not trying to start a "threaded debate" here (do candidates ever do that?), this is just a word to the wise, which you can consider or ignore. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe, as I think most of us do, that Eek is a fundamentally good person and valuable editor. I thank them for stepping up and volunteering.
There are some things in Eek’s responses to my questions that give me pause when I try to envision how they’ll handle Arbcom cases. First, there is the question of follow-through on their RfA commitment: Eek had made a key pledge in the midst of their RfA to revisit their past AfC declines, and it appears from their answers that they did very little of that in the six months that followed. Eek indicates that were hundreds of drafts that they had declined or draftified, that they did not review until this week. I’m glad that they eventually got to those hundreds of drafts; I’m disappointed that it took an Arbcom candidacy Q&A to nudge them into getting it done.
Another issue is Eek’s continued defense of their decision to draftify or decline Danish collaborator trials and Kirchner v. Venus (1859). Both of these articles would have survived AfD, both are good for the encyclopedia, and neither showed any signs of COI. So why is it better for the encyclopedia if they are deleted? That, not whether there is a justification for deletion, is the question.
Finally, back to Eek’s draftication of Danish collaborator trials: Eek was surprised that when they draftified a 12-minute-old article, the article creator stopped working on it and the article ended up being G13d. Those were unintended consequences, but they are thoroughly foreseeable ones. Arbitrators have far-reaching influence over the dynamics of the project and need to be highly skilled in thinking through the unintended consequences of their decisions. Unintended consequences after well-meaning decisions are perhaps the main reason to value experience in Arbcom candidates.
I do believe Eek could possibly be a good arbitrator, but personally I’ll vote for a different seven candidates this time. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 06:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
My interactions with CaptainEek have been completely positive. Under tense discussions, I have only seen this editor being impartial, rational, and very reasonable, which is exactly what ArbCom needs. ~ HAL 333 23:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
"If a user sees an admin or another power user routinely flying in the face of policy and AN/ANI are not helpful, one can ask ArbCom to take a look at that user's conduct. I, unfortunately, did it earlier this year and it resulted in a case."
Curiously the candidate uses the word unfortunately. One can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I would tend to classify the incident as management obsession, particularly where a situation was almost reaching (or had reached) an acceptable solution in another place. It demonstrates a possible heavy handed attitude in future Arbcom cases were the candidate to be granted a seat on the Committee again, and a continuation of the Committee's apparent new goal to rid the project of otherwise productive and highly experienced users.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 09:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Having seen Guerilleros answer to my question, I can't really elect them. GPinkerton actually adhered to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as the sources are on his side. They are reliable, secondary and also verifiable sources and they give them due weight. Both, he and I are trying to get through with ca. 50 academic sources mentioning or showing a Syrian Kurdistan against some original researchers who claim if some academic writes about a Syrian Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria it means that there exists no Syrian Kurdistan. If Guerillero thinks they are disruptive at the ANI,they could give them an ANI ban for some time in order to have time to think of what they could do better. A straight indef. ban is way too much for an editor active in an area with very low editorial admin activity since months. This is the version of Syrian Kurdistan on the day he became active in the article and this the one after he was active. He sort of doubled the size of the article which I guess is of great service for Wikipedia. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 02:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
You have been quite many times accused as a biased admin who play favourites in AE cases. Your behaviour and attitude is also not fair and on many instances you have taunted other editors because you were an admin. I don't see any good reason for you to be elected in Arbitration Committee. Anyhow may sanity prevail! USaamo ( t@lk) 12:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll pre-answer a probable question: "Why did you throw your hat in right near the deadline?" I've considered running for ArbCom again every year, and was seriously considering it again for next year, but was going to sit this one out. I had assumed that the pandemic would result in various editors having a lot more time on their hands, and thus expected a large number of candidates, but when I thought to check I found very few (fewer than available seats). I've observed ArbCom becomes "non-optimally functional" when short of active and non-recused Arbs, so it seemed pertinent to volunteer this year instead of waiting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: As I've also noted in my replies to some questions that another motivation for going in this year instead of waiting is the unusual number of Arbs and candidates who agree with me that WP:AC/DS is broken and that it at very least needs serious revision. I see an unusual opportunity for an interested caucus of Arbs to make real progress on this for a change. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC); rev'd 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
PPS: On the main 2020 election talk page, Thryduulf asked basically whether late-appearing candidates had some kind of strategic rationale. I can only speak for myself, but the answer is no. Indeed, I'm aware from similar earlier discussions that being a late-arriving candidate actually prejudices some editors to vote negatively for one reason or another. If I had looked in at the candidate page earlier and seen even fewer candidates, I would have stepped up much sooner. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
If I may brainstorm a little on potential ways to actually implement "Admonishments and/or final warnings should be much more frequent, and actually enforced" – it may require a combo approach like:
Those are just a few off-the-cuff ideas.
How to tackle the "unblockables" problem in earnest will require more detailed community and internal-to-ArbCom discussion, especially since the root of this problem, the "manufacture" of it, is not a fault in ArbCom rules or interpretation, but within community behavior and human nature: cult of personality, admin "brotherhood" factionalism, wikiproject factionalism like "gang" protection of in-group members, WP's aggregate userbase biases making it "okay" to grossly violate policies in pursuit of a popular socio-political viewpoint, etc. It varies by the type of "unblockable" at issue, and there are at least three varieties discussed in the RfC thread. I would say there are five, based specificially on: high-trust permissions (admin/crat), personality (wiki-social popularity), time/quantity of constructive contribution, quality of constructive contribution, and focus of constructive contribution. Plus there's a subclass, the "unbannable" who has been blocked many times but is always back; this is actually much more common that the truly "unblockable". Another subclass the "un-desysopppable".
I'll integrate something I said in my response to Kudpung's Q2: Community noticeboards would benefit from imposition of more posting rules, perhaps adapted from AE which is kind of half-way between RFARB/ARCA rigidity and ANI free-for-all. The generating of several kinds of "unblockables" would likely be short-circuited by community noticeboards no longer permitting endless evidence-free and usually consequence-free ranting. There is already precedent for this; e.g., ANEW already has long had a variety of stringent rules about evidence and what a proper report is and how to format it, and like AE has a history of BOOMERANG being easy to trigger there, while even AN leans much further this direction than ANI or various more specific noticeboards like NORN and NPOVN. A strong structural change to ANI and other "too open" noticeboards would also help solve the "dramaboarding as a spectator and team sport" problem, of abusing these venues as a form of addictive entertainment instead of dispute resolution. This is a long-standing NOTSOCIAL / NOTGAME / NOTFORUM / NOTBATTLEGROUND issue that the community doesn't know how to tackle.
PS: There's also an inverse problem not really addressed by that mega-RfC at all: "too-blockables". Certain sorts of editors are clearly more likely to be blocked or otherwise sanctioned based on what topics they edit, what viewpoints they express, even what kind of work they focus on, as well as for being newish and without much of a track record, among other "criteria". That's a whole different can of worms, though (and A7V2 has already asked a separate question about this). Another obvious-not-obvious point: we should not take this RfC as a mandate to accept "finally getting to going after" supposed unblockables simply because they've been seen that way. Any case brought must raise an ongoing problem/recent incident, not attempt to just relitigate old news. This is also a
double-jeopardy matter; the fact that the community declined to sanction, or effectively-enough sanction, in reaction to an old incident is already a done deal. Cf. the principle that remedies must be preventative not just punitive.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlike any other venue on the Internet, every Wikipedia user has the scope to be a 'governance obsessive' - and it's an activity some of them relish as seen by the speed in which some newbies post the 'I wanna be an admin someday' userbox to their user pages. ANI, the corps of a sysops, and the Arbitration Committtee are peppered with amateur litigators (fortunately there are sometimes some professional lawyers on the Committees) who like to feel important and will gladly issue a purely punitive remedy that has little to do with prevention. For some strata of users this is even without a course of appeal to the Arbcom or a body of even higher instance - a true Supreme Court which would rule not only on the relevant policies, but also fully (re)examine the evidence and facts of a case. Indeed, one of the problems of Arbcom is that any number of members are able to recuse themselves or be on a leave of absence where the remaining active arbitrators are barely a serious quorum.
SMcCandlish has some excellent ideas how all these issues could be addressed but this is not the venue to do so. Not being an admin may well unfortunately prevent a successful bid for a seat on the Committee, but I would heartily encourage him to take the incentive to initiate formal discussion towards the badly needed reforms. None of it will bother me personally, but Wikipedia isn't going to close down any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
; or B) have that template (with correct topical parameter) automatically delivered by bot to any editor who non-trivially edits in a DS-covered topic area, so that awareness is ensured and the template cannot be mistaken for a threat from another editor trying to get the upper-hand, or an allegation of wrongdoing by an admin without any actual evidence. The RfC concluded with over 50% support, and the vast majority of opposition (probably over 90% of it) was based simply in the assumption that the community cannot tell ArbCom what to do with its own templates, which both missed the point and is not actually true (the community sets ArbCom policy). The community could force ArbCom to change this stuff but won't, due to
FUD about ArbCom's bureaucracy. ArbCom, though, can itself make such changes, so it appears more practical to get ArbCom to change it from within. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)I can't mind-read the full intent of the question, of course. Maybe it includes a notion like "How can you assess a desysopping case if you've never been in admin shoes?" I already have and use most of the advanced permissions that have been "unbundled" from admin, including the high-risk (of badly breaking things) template-editor and (in potential community drama) page-mover. The effective fact is that INVOLVED, ADMINCOND, and related policies apply "and then some" to their use, because of their admin origin and community expectations about their use, and because the threshold for having these bits taken away is much lower (anything that smacks of abuse can be cause for WP:AN to revoke such a permission without much of a hearing). Admins are not, as a matter of procedure and rules, treated differently by ArbCom than other parties (though this RfC seems to have reached the conclusion that they have sometimes received subjective favoritism in whether a case would be accepted or a remedy applied). ArbCom is already notoriously difficult to persuade to even consider a potential desysopping, so there is no need for it to be more protective of admins. Indeed, there's a fairly common everday-editor view that ArbCom is basically a board of admins mainly there to shield other admins and help them sanction everyone else. I don't believe that's a correct assessment, but it's an "optics" and community-faith problem nonetheless, with the really obvious (and easily-fixed) cause, of ArbCom usually being only admins.
If anything, the fact that most Arbs are admins, and most admins reduce their content focus and just-an-editor interaction with others, as they get increasingly involved in administrative roles (and a few Arbs have further become like "career politicians", doing ArbCom over and over and over despite it consuming most of their available wiki-time), suggests that the Committee needs more non-admins for balance. Cf. frequent RfA opposition on the basis that a candidate doesn't do enough content work and spends too much time in dramaboards; it's the exact same concern applied to a different role candidacy. Maybe the better question for the community is, "How do we feel that ArbCom can properly discharge its project-protective roles when most of its members have less and less connection over time to the work of and issues faced by everyday editors achieving the project's actual encyclopedia-building mission?" See also WMF's eventual decision (years ago under community pressure) that it needed community-selected board members (and see recent outrage from editors that a draft revision of that bylaw would no longer require the community-selected ones to be the majority). It's essentially the same representativeness concern, just shifted upward a meta-level. ArbCom is in fact really weird for usually not containing any non-admins, and I hope to help crack the artificial ceiling open a bit more, to the community's and project's benefit.
Another possible meaning in your question is "If you're not an admin, why should we think you understand policy well?". My previous answers to questions above have gotten into my policy analysis, shepherding, and interpretation work in some detail. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A latent sub-question in this is: When does a conduct dispute become a conduct dispute for ArbCom? That's generally only after community DR mechanisms have already been exhausted (or cannot apply, e.g. because the conduct disruption is transgressing ArbCom-imposed restrictions, because it involves a desysop request, etc.). Another embedded query of sorts is: When is an RS-related dispute in particular not a conduct dispute despite conduct issues being raised? In short, when the dispute is primarily about content (source reliability, source existence, whether the source actually verifies the claim, etc.), and the behavioral complaints are incidental. (Or confused/specious, e.g. "won't stop citing sources I consider unreliable" is not a behavior dispute). However, it is often the case that protracted conflicts will result in content and conduct issues both arising sufficiently that they're independently disruptive and must be addressed. This requires they be handled separately, e.g. the one at RSN or NORN and the other at ANI or ultimately an ArbCom venue. Sometimes back-to-back or even concurrently. E.g., I'm strongly reminded of various "your ethnicity/religion/country/etc. versus mine" ugliness, the sordid "e-cigs" saga, modern American politics edit-and-flame wars, etc., which have all involved numerous content noticeboards and multiple behavioral noticeboardings and ArbCom, often involving the same parties. It can be a slow and even frustrating process, but it is one of our separation-of-powers safeguards against things like an institutional "viewpoint cabal" and so on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Some candidates got this question, and I didn't. But I found it fascinating, so I'm stealing it. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Conjoined twins (CTs) come in all sorts. I believe those of the Chang and Eng Bunker type, who are near-totally independent, would have to be considered separate editors, with a need to take turns at different accounts while editing (or use separate laptops simultaneously, or something to that effect). However, there are also CTs who directly share brain matter, fused at the head, and who do not always have entirely separate consciousness (often one is overwhelmingly dominant). We would often likely conclude to treat them as a single editor. In this specific hypothetical case, there's evidence of both independent and coordinated cognition, so I think it would come down to a specific determination about that case, with consideration given to the impact of various possible outcomes on the editor[s].
If their normal operation mode while writing really were an indistinct "commingled-I", then they could probably be permitted to retain a single account, but be barred from using it to present Abby-says-versus-Brittany-says dual input, which would definitely be two people using the same account, and confusing to other editors, to WP:CLOSE consensus assessments, etc. I.e., to keep a single account, they would need to privately come to a personal consensus on what to say before posting it, or remain silent on the matter, any time their commingled-I were to separate more clearly producing dissonance between them.
If their normal mode while writing were in a two-distinct-minds vein, they should use different accounts, but also be instructed not to use them to vote-stack by twice presenting one of their occasional commingled-I viewpoints as if it were two individuals separately coming to the same conclusion (whichever one first posted the commingled-I stance would be the only one to say it). It would be fine for both accounts to !vote in an RfC or whatever, whether they agreed or not, as long as they where independently reasoned (though probably mutually well-discussed) decisions.
There would of course be no way to absolutely enforce either of these, or even be 100% certain their self-reported descriptions of their mental separateness/coordination were accurate. But either version of these approaches would be a way to adapt policy to suit their unusual circumstance and keep them as editors/an editor in good standing. They would be the community taking in good faith how their mind[s] work, and them in turn agreeing in good faith not to game the system. Since the Hensels do have separate brains and spinal columns, and their coordination is thus a learned (albeit ingrained from infancy, developmentally-shaping) adaptation, I would expect that the second approach (separate accounts) would be the result, even if I think the opposite would likely result in many cases of CTs with fused skulls and direct brain/cognition overlap. PS: This is all assuming the community did not just update the policy to say something about this; I'm presuming ArbCom has been left to interpret and try to apply existing policy. PPS: I would normally have had some misgivings about discussing the Hensels in this way, but they have made public speculation about and understanding of their CT experience central to their actual lives, though various TV shows, etc., that they have long participated in. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)