Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Discussion

v t e 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Quick guide Candidates: Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Personal voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. theleekycauldron Nick Volunteer Marek Elonka Patient Zero Thryduulf Mz7 Tamzin Tryptofish Ealdgyth Bradv Reaper Eternal

This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2023. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023.

ToBeFree is a very strong looking candidate to me because of their involvement as an ArbCom clerk. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree's dedication, calm competence, and friendly demeanor are indisputable, and I can personally attest to them having worked with him for almost a year in his role as an ArbCom clerk. Those are traits that will serve him very well on ArbCom. It is a real delight to see him throw his hat into the ring, and I hope everyone joins me in supporting him. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, hey L235, thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. i'm voting support in the securepoll.--RZuo (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the candidate statement page, I was unsure whether to vote for this candidate, as this is my time eligible for voting in an arbcom election and did not feel like the statement gave me a sufficient understanding. However, after reading the candidate's answers to editor questions (and all the other candidates' questionnaires), I now think ToBeFree is one of the strongest candidates in this election. I encourage all other first-time voters to read the questionnaire pages as well, even if it seems like a lot of time to spend on wikipedia that isn't editing (or just learning about subjects by reading) wikipedia. Bennyfactor (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of All of the above GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime ago I had a dispute with ToBeFree in a permission request I made. At the time, I was using the Template:User Status, which notifies other editors if one is online or offline. But to do that the status needs to be changed from online to offline, making an edit. I then religiously proceeded to make minor edits changing my status to online or offline according to my presence or absence from my Wikipedia session. Then ToBeFree directly implied an accusation against me telling me, "I am also puzzled about your recent edits to your user talk page, which seem to have no other actual purpose than inflating your edit count."

ToBeFree for some reason decided that my edits seemed to be unreasonable and dishonest without even caring to inquire before making a conclusion as to why I made those edits. ToBeFree failed to assume good faith, failed to properly inquire about the situation, made a hasty conclusion about my edits, without even realizing that the purpose of the template I was using was to notify others of my online status which needed edits to do so.

To me, Wikipedia is an important part of my life and I try to make quality, detailed, and methodical edits. Therefore, I felt completely humiliated about ToBeFree's premature and painful accusations of dishonesty in my edits. As such, I don't feel comfortable about ToBeFree being an arbitrator. It is what it is. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please replace "purpose" by "effect". My assumption about your intention was incorrect and should have been one of good faith. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted yet, as I'm still trying to figure out which candidates to support—honestly, the contenders this year are so strong, I've got half a mind to vote for all of them. However, ToBeFree is one that I'm wavering on a little. Not because I don't trust him, but because I'm not sure of his willingness to make difficult decisions, and his ability to communicate his perspectives clearly and effectively. For instance, his answer to Theleekycauldron's question felt like more of a tangent than a straight response. He was asked for a specific example of a time when he made a tough decision as an administrator, and he gave a boilerplate "I try not to act unilaterally" generalization. It wasn't the kind of direct, forthright answer that I was looking for (and while I can't speak for her, I doubt it's what Leeky was looking for either). Then there's his answer to Tamzin's question, in which he doesn't really elaborate or offer much insight into his stance on ArbCom transparency; as before, it was very boilerplate and vague. None of this should be seen as a knock against TBF, who is a very competent and effective administrator—I think he'd do just fine if elected. But I like it when arbitrators are able to expound upon their ideas in ways that really give you insight into their line of thinking. TBF strikes me as being more reticent than I'd prefer. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate that you've stated your goals and beliefs up front in your statement, instead of giving out a bland statement and leaving everyone to have to figure out those things later. I mean, you could be lying, but I doubt it. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would be very lucky to have Firefly on ArbCom. I've had the pleasure of working with Firefly for over two years, first as a clerk and then as a functionary colleague, and I can't tell you enough how wonderful he is. Firefly brings an intense drive to improve and maintain the project, together with a careful analytic mind packaged with more friendliness and charm than I can describe. Working with him is always a great and inspiring experience, and I can't recommend him enough for ArbCom. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I've said about cordiality applies to the clerks too – working with Firefly and the others is a pleasure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that I’m travelling today and therefore my answers to questions may be a little delayed - apologies. Courtesy ping @Theleekycauldron @Barkeep49 @Tamzin as they have asked one at the time of writing. firefly ( t · c ) 07:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly said something genuinely nice to me the other day. I'm rather fragile at the moment, parce-que various RL-if-metaphorical punji pits, and what he said brought a tear to my eye. That's what struck me, right then. It was nothing to do with being civil—of course, he was—but damn civility as a BS excuse for saying whatever you like as long as you don't swear. That's not civility; that's hypocrisy. What Firefly demonstrated was compassion. Compassion to a digitally evoked username. That's worth 1000 times civility. And no disrespect, but I imagine it's a quality that no committee has ever overflowed with. ——Serial 21:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm excited to see Aoidh's candidacy and believe he will add a lot to Arbcom. Everything I've seen from him has indicated a mature temperament and reasoned judgement. While he became an admin recently, Aoidh has been editing since the early 2010s, longer than most currently serving Arbs, which has been skewing towards the prominent editors of the later 2010s--early 2020s as of late. Aoidh also has much experience with dispute resolution processes outside of ANI and Arbcom, and has a history of providing third opinions, diffusing talk page arguments, and working on block appeals. This is a good trait for an Arb-- someone who has had significant work within these content related processes involving the smaller names of the community. I think Aoidh has the requisite empathy and devotion to the community and am glad to give him a co-sign. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting candidature, but if there was a "Too soon" available for Arbcomistas, it might apply here. As I see it, unfortunately, Z1720 has been an active editor since August 2020, and then ran a successful candidature for admin a year later. And now a run at a seat. The problem, I think, is that judging whether an editor is fit to be an admin is one set of questions, based primarily on their behavior as an editor. This is a very different situation in that now it is Z1720's activity as an administrator that is examined. There are no black marks at all, by the way!—but this is basically because there are too few actions to assess. Excepting 44 revdels, they've blocked one editor, reblocked three and unblocked seven over the year. And little or no participation in the discussion boards—ANEW, AFD, AIV or AE, for example, where activity isn't always logged but the ability to discuss things while under a microscope and knowing that, whatever their decision, someone's going home empty-handed. Mind you, they make a lot of positive contributions at FAC, and I don't think I've ever disagreed with them on anything substantial, so there is that. ——Serial 00:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I think the FAC discussions are plenty detailed and under a microscope. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129, a good explanation for the lack of logged admin actions is that most of Z1720's admin work is at WP:DYK which doesn't involve blocking, deleting etc. I've also seen them decline unblock requests occasionally as well. #prodraxis ^connect 21:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK has about the same heat ratio as FAC, and the stats are probably similar. Discussions of low heat, minimal participation on a local project != anything that can be expected at a case request. E.g. the latest WT:FAC thread mentioned above has rumbled quietly on for 4 days with 6X that no. of participants. (Incidentally, Z's participation on that page is running at around 50 edits over the last 3 years.) A case request could get 20 often emotionally charged comments in the first 20 minutes.

Barkeep does not mean to but he does his colleagues a disservice. One of them, indeed, in Another Place, recently noted that non-arbs see the modern caseload is maybe 10 cases a year, and it doesn't look like there's all thut much work. There is. More than you think. It literally never ends, there's something else every single day... It's a LOT of email. DYK / FAC are not training schemes for a cauldron where everyone on fucking Reddit wants to know your name. I bet a lot of active arbs would look back on local projects as a fond childhood memory. Basically, someone who doesn't want the confrontation neither needs nor wants to be an arb. All this, by the way, is nonobstante their primary role as a content creator; I've dabbled in article writing myself, and they are no mean achiever. It us clearly their skill, their forte, their passion. As the logs indicate. ——Serial 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just have a more expansive vision of what kind of experiences (compared to attributes such as good judgement) can be helpful to making someone a good arb. My criteria would basically boil down to:

1. Has proven themselves in a high stakes environment. This can be ANI, it can be AE, but can also be closing really fraught deletion discusisons, or participating in certain reviewed content decisions
2. Wants to do it
3. Has the time
4. Will keep at it even when the glamour wears off

For 4 I like someone who has "owned" a wiki process like Moneytree did with CCI as an example from last year's election. This commitment to sticking with it will also be the basis for a question I plan to ask all candidates this year. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share a relatively expansive view of what counts as good experience for the Committee. More generally, one of the biggest lessons I've learned — and it's a cliche but it's more true than I expected — is that beyond a certain level of familiarity and competence that all arbs need, a real diversity of experience is quite helpful on the Committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I've wholly changed my mind; I am still concerned by the lack of proof of resilience under pressure, etc., and a bit more experience in the admin role (to reiterate: I simply don't understand why someone who doesn't want to be an admin would want to be on arbcom; but maybe that's just me). However, I'm very impressed by their answer to Q8. It's healthy to see someone willing to accept that 'peace' does not mean an infobox everywhere. Since many admins steer clear of the area, it's actually good to hear that one might get involved and apportion blame to where it is so often ignored. ——Serial 20:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To come back to this, Z1720 can rest easy; after recent events, I'm less bothered by a candidate with little experience than increasingly inclining to the view that they couldn't possibly do worse than the incumbency. ——Serial 16:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found Maxim an excellent arb and colleague and want to explain why for other editors who haven't seen that side of his work. In Maxim's nomination statement he mentions his work behind the scenes. Having been a colleague of his for 2 years, I want to attest that this work was real and substantial. Having Maxim on the committee would definitely mean that work will get done that might not otherwise and that other work will happen faster because of his eforts, time, and thoughts. I'm guessing some editors might have concerns about his onwiki contributions this past year but I do not. I know he wouldn't be submitting if he didn't think he could do the work because even towards the end when he was saying he felt burned out, he still did more than his fair share behind the scenes. Additionally, I want to note that Maxim was seen by fellow arbs as a really good sockhunter, with several major incidents really benefitting from the work he did with CU data and behavior. I hope others find this helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second this. Maxim's work behind the scenes in 2020-22 was unparalleled in both quantity and quality. We have really sorely felt Maxim's absence this year. I am sure that we would be a more capable, efficient, and effective committee with Maxim back. He has my strongest support. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Maxim had my full support and appreciation before, during, and after his time as an arb. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For an arb who spends most of his time behind the scenes, Maxim seems to draw an excessive number amount of caning from The'ocracy, and not from just their Usual Suspects / ex-WP demography. What gives? ——Serial 20:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a first term arb I accepted the way things worked for my first year. Come the first weeks of my second year it was apparent there was a huge hole in the team. Maxim's behind the scenes work was sorely missed. Any voter contemplating a choice between voting for me or Maxim, vote Maxim. The other arbitrators will be thankful. Cabayi (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the vote of confidence Cabayi, but I think you're selling yourself short. You've been consistently active for two years on all arb matters (I suppose that for the second year, I can only comment on the on-wiki matters) and you clearly seem to have the energy to do two more. With how the Committee works nowadays, those two attributes are probably the two most important ones to flourishing as an arbitrator. Maxim (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim has a long-term track record of solid judgment. He's a fantastic admin, a detailed bureaucrat and was a fair arbitrator during his previous times on the committee. I don't have specific examples to support my statement, but overall from my interactions with and observations of Maxim going back over 15 years, I can say with confidence that he was great on ArbCom before and will be again. So, yes! Acalamari 16:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim gave a long and thoughtful answer to my Q21. I noticed, though, that his answer to Q10 mentions 14 cases in 2010 as the start of a trend, implying that ArbCom has had less work in the most recent decade. I posted my question to ToBeFree as well, along with a reference to Maxim Q10, noting there that a serious reconsideration of the role of ArbCom might be in order. Has it ever been discussed? Specifically, narrowing the responsibilities in the hope that more people will seek election. This would also reduce work load if it actually has grown (contrary to my interpretation of his Q10 answer). Martindo (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in early to comment on Harry's candidacy. As much as I would miss his prompt hand on the sysop switch if he succeeds, I wish him well in this new endeavour. I cannot think of a better-qualified candidate for ArbCom. He brings a wealth of background and experience that will serve the community, and the committee, very well indeed. For what it is worth, he has my unqualified support. All the best, Harry. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, and I am beyond thrilled to see HJ run for ArbCom. TBH, HJ's always been one of my "role models" as an editor as his content work is top notch (39 FAs!) and he is great at dealing with vandalism, spam, disruptive editors etc. Furthermore, his extensive work at AE has always been valuable and I haven't had any previous qualms about his judgement. The previous experience as an Oversighter might also bring more helpful skills as an arbitrator as well, as HJ has likely dealt with the kind of sensitive information that Arbs often have to encounter. #prodraxis ^connect 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• HJ Mitchell isn't someone whose decisions I have always agreed with, and a committee comprised exclusively of HJ clones would not be good for Wikipedia. But as one voice among many, I believe his input would be invaluable. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fully supporting this candidate. This might come as a surprise; obviously, I've always hated him since he nearly tanked my FAC, but in all other respects, what an editor! So much hard work in the featured theatre. Not just in their own work, but in their compassion and patience with new editors, willingness to teach, and also to lead. Willing to give, and to take advice! And what an admin too—willing to make the hard but correct choices (E. g. [1])—fully endorsed by the community—and yet be sufficiently dispassionate about the affair to unblock. Why elect new blood with less experience when we can have new blood plus years of experience. ——Serial 20:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my question 5 and his reply, no, I don't consider HJ Mitchell to be a good candidate for the post. The inability to see or admit that actual evidence was presented by multiple people that Acalamari had made a mistake (claiming that a vote was invalid because it incorrectly said that a question was unanswered, even though at the time the vote was cast the question was indeed unanswered), and the attitude in the reply of "if it doesn't affect the readers, it's not important", as if things that affect editors (in this case both the single editor whose vote was struck, but also the general unease it creates discouraging people from opposing and voicing their opinion, and the "burocrats are infallible" impression) can't be worthy of serious attention. The attitude displayed in that discussion and the reply to the question here doesn't give me confidence that HJ Mitchell will objectively look at the evidence instead of sticking to whatever opinion they form right at the start of a case request (or ban appeal or other Arb business). Fram (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fram. I doubt I was going to get your vote anyway but that's fine because editors can disagree in good faith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Fram's concerns here, not necessarily for the rightness or wrongness of Acalamari's decision but specifically for HJ Mitchell's statement on writing bytes in mainspace. Arbcom, and also what we are doing here anyways, is the most expedient way to expend truly unfathomable amounts of bytes for no significant benefit for anyone involved. I mean, imagine if someone questions a given Arbcom decision and HJ Mitchell tells them to get back to contributing instead of offering an explanation. I realise that he was not in the position of a decision maker in the relevant AN thread, so this may be a bit of an inapt analogy, but I still think the general principle applies. "Get back to contributing" is something I would expect everyone who voluntarily participates in an AN thread not to say. Since he otherwise looks like a very promising candidate, I think it would be a shame to oppose over a single issue, and I'm open to (and invite) input by other editors on the concerns above. Fermiboson (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment on any of the candidates (except I'll say I think we have a very good slate this year, with nobody I'd strongly oppose). But I've changed my mind, because I was very happy to see Harry in the running and I want to voice my support. I've known Harry a good few years now, and I think he's one of the best we have at seeing all sides of things, and arriving at a fair solution with minimum emotion. And he's definitely got better at it as the years have made their mark on him. I don't always agree with him, of course - but then, I wouldn't trust anyone who always agreed with me ;-) Thanks for standing, Harry, and good luck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While there are plenty of good candidates this year, my two favorites are Maxim and Harry here; in both cases, I was delighted to see that they had applied. I have known Harry for over a decade but where he stands out from all the other candidates is that, through Wikipedia meetups and Wikimania, I've had the chance to actually meet him in person. Very down-to-earth in real life, just as he is online, and in both arenas displays a huge amount of knowledge about the site and its many aspects' in addition to that, he's a very sane and sensible guy, regardless of whether or not one agrees with him. He is a fair judge of any situation and does look at all sides before opining. I don't expect to agree with every Arb ruling he'll make but it's not about having full agreement with him: It's knowing he's made the best, most informed and most fair decision possible, and that's what Harry will do. So, with fairness, good sense and positive temperament, Harry is one of the best candidates for ArbCom this year! Acalamari 17:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, unfortunately, do not have the time to write a full voter guide as I have in the past (see 2015 and 2017). However, I will express my support of HJ Mitchell here. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Very sound. ——Serial 20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards oppose for this candidate, unfortunately, mainly based on three concerns:

• Their answer to my question about returning arbs was the shortest of the three, and to me indicated something of an "it's fine" attitude. The other two former (or serving) arbs gave much clearer explanations of exactly why they thought it was fine, and what situations are not fine, and why they aren't fine.
• Their answer to BilledMammal's Q16, particularly point 3: "If they don't like us, they can vote us out". While technically true, and recognising of course the need for ArbCom to make unpopular decisions based on private evidence, if it reaches the point where community-supported wheel warring is taking place, this is far past the point of "just fix it next year". I would argue that virtually any ArbCom decision where admins wheel warring, and nobody else doing anything about it, is a scenario that is even envisioned, ArbCom needs to do some serious introspection on either the decision itself or how to better communicate the rationale of the decision to the community. I definitely don't think very highly of the implied attitude that arbs are accountable to the community only at election time.
• Their answer to Tamzin's question, the response of which seemed rather pointed; in addition the much more well thought out rationale in response to this question can be found on Tamzin's userpage.

If anyone wishes to, please let me know your thoughts about these concerns. Fermiboson (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put to bed the hoary old chestnut as to whether RMcC should run: of course he should. Elsewhere, a current committee member has just told me that beyond a certain level of familiarity and competence that all arbs need, a real diversity of experience is quite helpful on the Committee. There can be no doubt as to this candidate's familiarity since they respond to case requests so frequently that Barkeep49 was forced to make a sardonic mention of their repeated, and perhaps of questionable relevance, attendance, to the extent of parenthesizing which case they're commenting. Wish I could find that diff. Or was it GeneralNotability? My brains. Go McClenon! ——Serial 21:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a comment I made to Robert (but I am considering asking him a question about his statements, so perhaps you were reading my mind). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies, Barkeep49, my memory was as defective as my mind-reading. It was, in fact, GeneralNotability who said something similar, but in mitigation, it perhaps reflects the same high level of regard that I hold you both in that I was confused. I called it a distillation of most cases, or something pretentious. ——Serial 14:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn. On one hand, I want arbs to be current admins as adminship demonstrates a high degree of community trust and often admins have to do dispute resolution/noticeboard stuff that prepare them for arb work later on, but Robert isn't an admin. However, Robert's extensive work at DRN as well as previous experience as an trainee Arb Clerk (although he resigned) certainly does show to some extent that he does know what it takes to be on ArbCom. Either way, I am sure Robert will certainly bring a unique perspective to ArbCom as a non-admin editor if he's elected. #prodraxis ^connect 01:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. i'm voting oppose in the securepoll.--RZuo (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Hello @RZuo and thank you for contributing to the discussion about the ArbCom candidates. I think it would be helpful for the candidates themselves as well as the larger community if you could share a little bit more of your rationale for voting the way you do. Again, there is nothing wrong or incorrect about your comment, it just may be more meaningful and helpful if also backed up by an explanation. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   i keep a list of users. this user is on it.

   i disagree with the use of securepolls on wiki projects, so i declare my votes, and i hope other users will do the same. RZuo (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Hey RZuo, thanks for giving such a clear demonstration of why editors absolutely should vote for this candidate. ——Serial 20:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert! Thanks for running for the 2023 arbitration committee elections. While you are no doubt trusted, I personally think a non-admin will be lost if on the committee. For one, you lack the ability to block users, which is an issue for me personally. I wish you the best of luck, but I think you’d be better off passing an RfA first. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally implementing a block should not be a priority for an arbitrator qua arbitrator. Sennalen (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has a general issue with initiative in relation to blocking and unblocking often. A user who can do neither is not going to be able to help fix that issue much less ameliorate that issue. Izno (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But do we really need every arb to be able to do every job? It seems like the value from diverse points of view would outweigh that when every other committee member has the ability to block/unblock, but not a single other one has the point of view. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the platonic ideal would be yes every arb should be able to do every job. In reality every arb can't do every job now - for instance some know their limitations with CU/OS and never touch either and I'll suggest (perhaps more controversially) not every Arb can really write a motion. So on that level a non-admin being unable to do this work isn't different than what we already see. Note: this is not me telling people what criteria they should use to vote or disagreeing that having fewer people who do X places a disproportionate, and sometimes unfair, burden on the arbs who actually do X. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it is valuable if every arb could theoretically do every part of the job, even if some choose not to, and that's a comment ignoring having the basic knowledge to know that they should.

You'll note also that I did not say only the word block but also the word unblock, and that was deliberately included. As probably the arbitrator who has issued the most unblocks this year as part of the role, nobody jumps up to do it. (I don't know why. Maybe expectation that someone else will, maybe the usual and true excuse of email exhaustion/confusion, maybe something else.) The same is true of {{ArbComBlock}}s issued, though I'm not often the one to have done that side of the job. If Robert is not an administrator, he can not partake in those crucial activities, meaning work remains To Be Done on specific threads of email, which likely means the committee is not as active as it could be. Completing our responsibilities is important. As someone who dealt very directly with the committee's choice to have an RFC on deletion, I hope that last resonates with you.

And ultimately, some times we need to pinch hit or learn new things on the job. Arbitrators take breaks or go longterm inactive so someone needs to pick up the slack (one reason I ended up appeals focused besides being drawn to it is because Maxim took a break from coordinating them). While I don't think the committee would keel over if just Robert were on it as a non-administrator (at least in technical regards - I make no comment about the social, you can read ACE guides for that), imagine what could not be done directly by a committee with a few Roberts and a few inactive administrator-tool-holding arbitrators. It would sound lame to me as an appellant receiving an email that says "no-one active can unblock you so you'll have to be patient until someone is around".

Cabayi is perhaps someone who could speak to being a one-of on the committee (he is a renamer) who I have had to lean on as another arbitrator in that role, but he is running and I know there is soft norm of candidates steering clear of other candidates. Multiple appeals accepted have come with "thou shalt rename" according to WP:User names, and if he were not around, I would have personally and on-behalf of the committee felt in some bind to accept the appeal expeditiously (once we had come to the decision to accept, which I suspect it is no secret that our final response times are if-not-abysmal not exactly speedy, which simply adds to the clock).

To be clear, these are in the abstract and are not a statement on Robert specifically. But as he is the archetype of non-admin running in ACE, much of this commentary comes with the specific. (We would not be having this discussion, or perhaps not on this page, otherwise.) Izno (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trusting that noboday minds I would appreciate an opportunity to comment on this issue. Not the candidate in question whom honestly seems to havea wealth of relevant experience in dispute resolution, which is also called arbitration in some areas. Having served two terms as the Chair of the OC which in some ways is a similar working committee as ArbCom, just global not local, I do not see having access to the admin tools as being that crucial an indicator for the person to do the work.

Over a number of years now I have watched Ombuds come and go, of varying degrees of ability. The best ones have been people with legal experience (ie lawyers) and people with significant experience as CheckUsers, ArbCom former members, those working with other investigation activities, eg VRTS. Their success with the admin tools has had little to do with their ability to do the work. What I want to see in the Ombuds is an ability to investigate, know policy, arbitrate issues, come up with and write good resolutions that can pass. The willingness to be involved in the work, ie comment on the cases, bring fresh ideas. Being able to block is not in that list. Obviously for most of these people to get on OC they are admins somewhere, and usually much more. But the point is its not the admin tools that really gave them the tools for this type of work.

I agree with the point that it may be desirable to be an admin first, but I think you may be missing good opportunities to get skillful members if you make it a condition. It is a committee for a reason, they share the load. Someone else can be asked to block. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, I do get what you're saying. I guess I just feel there are two ideals here, and they're unfortunately kind of at odds with one another.

We need diverse perspectives. Because much of the committee’s work must be done privately, we very much need for people not on the committee to know their perspective is at least represented there.

IMO, when we don't have a lot of diversity on the committee, we should try to increase it even if the candidate isn’t perfect. Is Robert the perfect non-admin candidate? Probably not, if for no other reason than that he wants to be an admin. But he’s still in a position to increase diversity and to offer other non-admins the knowledge that there’s a single voice on the committee who is in their shoes.

I’m inclined to consider the candidacy of anyone who provides some measure of currently completely-missing diverse perspective as long as they:

1. aren’t a crank
2. aren’t likely to shirk the work

…even if the candidacy in other ways isn’t ideal, even when the candidate can't do every job. That’s how important diversity of perspective is on a committee that does this kind of work, to me. Valereee (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with what Illusion Flame said above, but in part. I don't think lacking the administrator tools would be a major bar from being able to perform the duties of an ArbCom member. It just would be very inconvenient. They won't have access to important logs, deleted revisions, and other evidence compared to other ArbCom "colleagues". However, for me to support a candidacy for ArbCom, I really have to be able to see their tenure and experience as an administrator; how they handle hard situations, how they make decisions, how they treat other users under the role (especially new ones). It's an important aspect of one's experience on Wikipedia, especially if you wish to apply for a seat on a committee where all previous appointed members have been administrators for some time. This is what's giving me pause overall. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding They won't have access to important logs, deleted revisions, and other evidence—if elected, Robert McClenon would be eligible to receive checkuser and oversight rights, both of which provide access to the ability to view deleted revisions and other private logs: see Special:ListGroupRights#checkuser and Special:ListGroupRights#suppress. (I do agree with the view that prospective arbitrators should have some amount of administrative experience first, though.) Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit to being disappointed that Robert is the only candidate who has not answered all the questions that were asked before today (with some candidates having answered every question at the time voting started). I consider accountability to the community to be an incredibly important aspect of an arbitrator and one I certainly try to live by. Admittedly one of the questions unanswered is mine but the other 5 questions from before today are from other editors so it's not just that Robert chose to skip my question for whatever reason. I'm holding off my vote for now in hopes that I can read a full range of answers but obviously many voters are proceeding ahead. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Robert McClenon: - could you explain? Thanks. starship.paint (RUN) 07:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: Robert has been busy working at his answers today, which is much appreciated. I got answers to the couple of questions I was waiting for and have now been able to vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49, User:Starship.paint, User:Fermiboson - I can say and will say that I was focused on real life stuff, such as travel for a public holiday, and other even more boring real life stuff, and I am also aware that that isn't considered an excuse. I will comment, and this is again not an excuse, that I think that the period between the opening of questions and the start of voting was too short, and will note that as a comment for next year. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Fermiboson (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly understand and at first I guessed that but then when lots of subsequent questions got answered started to doubt it. If I had known this before I wouldn't have said anything. Thanks again for the explanation. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that McClenon's in/ability to answer a couple of questions has been rather overshadowed recently by slightly more serious committee actions. Or should be... ——Serial 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Barkeep's concerns above about the number of questions answered. Initially, I was also worried about how much experience Robert had in admin related matters, but I realised that I had neglected to actually check with the xtools.wmcloud page and went to the wrong CSD log (in my defense it was 4am), so my question has now been struck (it was unanswered) and concerns in that regard assauged. (With apologies to Robert for not doing my due dilligence). Otherwise, I think their work at DRN makes them particularly suitable in terms of the possible profiles of an non-admin ArbCom candidate, and I also think that an non-admin arb is a great idea. Fermiboson (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being appointed to ArbCom requires the candidate to "meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data" and be willing to "sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement". I know for certain that holding CU and OS access requires the user "to have passed an 'RfA or RfA-identical process' first". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it stands as a requirement to sign the confidentiality agreement. Does that requirement also apply to ArbCom candidates? Or can they still be appointed to ArbCom? I know the voting system is different for ArbCom appointments vs RFAs, but does running for ArbCom count as an "RFA-like process"? I'm curious to know, and any input would be greatly appreciated. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah ArbCom elections are an RFA-like process and would allow Robert (who is already on the noticeboard saying he's signed the ANPDP) to get CU and OS. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 - Thank you for clarifying. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with Robert for years on the DRN, and I believe that he is supremely qualified for Arbcom. His lack of Adminship notwithstanding- he understands Wikipedia on an unparalleled level. He has an unbelievable ability to remain neutral in disputes, and handles even the most complex and contentious issues with grace and empathy. He doesn't hesitate to navigate contentious issues and displays common sense and insight. I would hate to see him disqualified because he has found valuable ways to contribute without admin tools. We view becoming an admin as the pinnacle of contribution to WP, and, for the most part, that is true. However- there are a few individuals who have managed to become an integral part of how WP functions without those tools. Robert is one of them and would make an excellent member of Arbcom. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, unfortunately, do not have the time to write a full voter guide as I have in the past (see 2015 and 2017). However, I will express my support of Robert McClenon here. He would be good as an arbcom member and he has been helpful in issues that editors have brought to arbcom. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a dispute with Robert McClenon regarding a sentence in an RfC. I still have no idea why they only saw part of it and not the whole thing. The discussion I had with them didn't clarify the issue. Regardless, instead of clarifying things, McClenon cited the horse is dead to apparently shut down the discussion.^[1] Not really what I would want in an arbitrator. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How astonishingly petty and childish. It's hard to imagine clearer proof of the correctness of the his decision to disengage. How many different fora are you planning on taking this temper-tantrum to? 68.237.27.46 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did a (potentially) bad argument allow you to make personal attacks? Fermiboson (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about your stance on the hypothetical clash between WMF and English Wikipedia's CON. You claim to support en.wiki CON against WMF, yet you say we should support the UCOC? What if our Wikipedia decide to defy UCOC on their CON? Martianmister (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. i'm voting oppose in the securepoll.--RZuo (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Alright, can you explain why? Do you have any concerns about Wugapodes being on the Committee? --rchard2scout (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I Can't speak for RZuo, but the handling of the Beeblebrox suspension, to me, is disqualifying for all Arbs who !voted support. In Wug's case specifically, this is highly regretful, as I found their handling of Holocaust in Poland to be excellent and would have supported. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Per their comment on another candidate, they oppose the private ballot aspect of this election and they probably wish that it was like older ArbCom elections where supports and opposes were publicly stated. Explanations of "why" are not required in that system, the vote still counts. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed by the level of detail and attention given by Wugapodes in answering questions from the community. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the other arbs won't mind if I say that Wugapodes is the smartest arb in our flock, but I suspect everyone else on the Committee would agree too. Wugapodes brings so much to the table: a friendly and considerate demeanor, a deeply impressive analytical mind, the courage to always say what he means and never say what he doesn't mean. Even when we disagree — and that happens plenty often! — I can rest easy knowing that Wugapodes has given my ideas fair consideration... and, statistically, he ends up being right (and I wrong). We'd be lucky to have Wugapodes back on the committee for another term, and if he's reelected, I look forward to engaging with him on his ideas for handling appeals. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Wugapodes is the smartest Arb among you, what does that say about the competition  ;) ——Serial 20:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I feel just fine knowing I can't measure up KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this burden of being intellectually inferior. :) Izno (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just like to say that despite the fact that Wugs just voted to throw me out, I will be voting for them and encourage others to do so. He is undeniably a strong asset on the committee and a very thoughtful person. (new sig) Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 07:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, unfortunately, do not have the time to write a full voter guide as I have in the past (see 2015 and 2017). However, I will express my support of Wugapodes here. He would be good as an arbcom member and he has been helpful in issues that editors have brought to arbcom. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]