User:Kudpung/ACE2020

I'd rather have an admin who was straight talking than one who pussy foots around to be "nice". – Ritchie333 December 2015

Arbcom is a broken system which fails to do what it's meant to do and quite often sours and embitters those who become a part of it, even if they're decent people who only joined up with the best of intentions. – Iridescent, October 2020

It has often been suggested that Arbcom is 'judge, jury, and executioner'. Most developed democracies have a formal system of appeal, and most editors have right of appeal but desysoped admins are denied that right. 'Executioner' is the operative word - for an admin it's a beheading. Executions cannot be undone. – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง

We have Arbs and admins who play to the audience, including on IRC and Wikipedia Review, because they want to be liked, or are scared of being disliked. We're hundreds of years behind the rest of the world's institutions when it comes to understanding what fairness entails. [1] – SlimVirgin October 2009

...this ArbCom has proven itself to be the most unfair and overactive that we have seen in recent memory. [2] – TonyBallioni April 2020

It's a bit late

- if you're reading this guide now for the first time. It's Friday 27 November, this guide was one of the very first to be published and the vast majority of all the ballot papers are already in the cista and most of those within the first 24 hours. Indeed, the editors who are most likely to be swayed by a guide cast their votes within the first four or six hours of the poll being opened. Generally those are the editors who are the most industrious and/or permanently concerned with and about the governance of Wikipedia and who follow the process. Your vote at this stage may have little impact on the tally already racked up - but it might - and in that respect this guide might still have some purpose, and there are also the guides of other users that have been published but many far too late to be of much consequence, but do read them too. Don't be surprised if you find that some of them have taken their cues from this one.

Thoughts on ACE2020

ACE2019 had 22 candidates for 11 places. ACE2020 has 12 candidates for 7 places.

I have cast my vote. I supported 3 candidates and opposed all the others.
My votes are absolutely not necessarily based based on the answers to my questions.
My objective is to have an Arbcom that is equitable in its approach to requests for cases and in its adjudication and passing sentence. For many years this has not been the case and I'm not optimistic that it will change.
Effectively, Wikipedia decision-making and has been ceded to a small group of obsessives whose hobby is Wikipedia governance.

You're probably wondering why, if I am retired, I am writing this guide. The answer is simple: 1) I use the encyclopedia a lot on a daily basis and I would like the information I get to be neutral and as factually accurate as possible. 2) I abhor the notion that some people make money riding on the backs of the volunteers' dedication to build this project. 3) It's the ultimate role of the Arbitration Committee to ensure that editors adhere to those principles. 4) I've been around Wikipedia and been part of its 'management' a long time and I know what goes on.

Don't for a moment run away with the idea that this guide has anything to do with my desysoping. It doesn't but if I mention it here it is only to illustrate a point. I have run for office myself a couple of times and once narrowly missed obtaining a seat, but I have been disillusioned with the Arbitration Committee for a very long time. My opinion is that it should be deprecated and replaced by something else. One of its it main problems is the election system itself. With so few candidates and needing only 50% support to gain a seat, over half of them will be elected (assuming they get 50%). Which means that some of them might be (and certainly some previous members have been) "careerists and obsessives" while others might simply not have the right experience or qualities. For such a small group of people, the Committee has a very high drop out rate or members being 'temporarily' unavailable. The Committee has not been free of its own scandals - collectively or individually.

It will be a loss to the Committee that some members have not sought reelection.

Questions I asked all the candidates:

1. The Arbitration Committee is not a court of law, but it has often been suggested that it is 'judge, jury, and executioner'. I'm not asking you to comment on that, but my related question is: Should the Committee base its Findings of Fact purely on the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s), or should its members have a duty to investigate the veracity of those complaints?
2. Wikipedia's drama board at WP:ANI is open to comment by all and sundry which might affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even demonstrate a consensus that might not always be the most suitable. on Arbcom cases comments (often throw-away ones) from totally uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also color the objectivity of members of the committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. In your opinion, how valid are such comments participation?

The questions were deliberately formulated to see how the respondents would interpret their focus. Not intended as 'trick' questions per se, most candidates answered candidly whether or not their opinions were what I hoped to hear. Only two candidates found the questions confusing and/or failed to answer them directly.

Edit counts are a fairly good indicator of activity but in some tasks such as regular SPI, UPE, or COI work etc. may not reflect the actual time spent on the project. Very high edit counts may reflect the use of automated edits such as AWB, and regular routine use of Twinkle and other scripts that can create several edits with one mouse click.

Once awarded the mop, admins will choose to work where they feel most comfortable and not all will be particularly active in areas of dispute resolution or behavior management. I do however expect Arbcom members to have demonstrated some experience in those areas.

So, in no particular order:

SMcCandlish

• Total edits: 175,246
• Mainspace: 53,600
• Drama boards: High. 1,180
• Is admin: No
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Regular. 24/7 (literally round the clock)[3]
• Reason for running: "I want to help ArbCom be more consistent, more transparent, less bureaucratic, less reluctant to amend. Our dispute-resolution systems exist to settle disruptive conflicts quickly, toward productivity. This hasn't consistently happened."

A hugely visible and active user and a mainstay of the WP:MoS. I like McCandlish although we do not always agree all of the time. In some languages, the grammar makes it practically impossible for the writer or speaker to disguise their gender; it's only because English has a way of employing gender neutral pronouns to this end that politics are made of it. An enormous issue was raised over this article in The Signpost followed by an equally enormous MfD to get it deleted. My opinion is that the article was written by the authors and published by the E-in-C in good faith. I am (and always have been, even in the days when it was almost criminal to be so, fully supportive of LGBT+ even as a victim of poorly disguised misandry on Wikipedia which ironically led to my desysoping), but I do not believe the consensus to delete to be representative of the newspaper's readers or even of the broader community.
Although he doesn't suffer fools gladly and doesn't mince his words, McCandlish is fair and helpful but has a tendency to verbosity at times, but this means that he has given deep thought to what he says and would probably be quite a good asset to the Committee. Athough I might not support this candidature on a technicality, the issue of the article in The Signpost does not disqualify it - there have been times when former or sitting arbitators have been guilty of at least some level of misogyny or misandry, but this is not such a case. However, IMO in the interests of access to deleted material, and some experience closing contentious issues as an admin, an arbitrator needs the admin toolset. Notwithstanding, he could be the first non-admin to win a seat.

Maxim

• Total edits: 42,900
• Mainspace:17,800
• Drama boards: ANI 188, AN 95, BN 144
• Is admin: Yes, 2007 RfA as Evilclown93 (77/0/6). Bureaucrat 2011 (117/14/13) My vote (moved to support)
• Former arbitrator: Yes
• Editing pattern: Mainly content and FA until 2013. Very active from 2007 to mid 2009 From Dec 2013 to April 2019 almost totally absent with very rare sporadic edits.[4]
• Reason for running: Seeking consecutive reelection. "I don't have an aversion to the job (yet!), and as cynical a reason as that may be, my observation of past arbitrators and committees suggests that not having a distaste for the job is significant in a positive way."

Maxim has written a very recent (October 2020) short but concise essay: Thoughts on arbitration, excellent reading for anyone contemplating voting at ACE or even running for office in the future; interesting theories about desysoping. Maxim's answers to users' questions on this and the previous ACE are almost exasperatingly measured and 'correct', and guarded but reasonable answers to my questions. Level headed, demonstrates a high level of maturity and fairness, Maxim is generally discreet but takes Wikipedia seriously, has been around a long time but despite concerns voiced on his RfB is not a careerist. I find Maxim altogether a rather enigmatic person, but certainly an asset to the Committee if they will dedicate the time to it.

Guerillero

• Total edits: 20,700
• Mainspace: 5,000
• Drama boards 283 (ANI 209)
• Is admin: Yes, 2011 (59/14/6). Also Arbcom clerk and Checkuser.
• Former arbitrator: Yes
• Editing pattern: Low and irregular. Almost totally absent since early 2016. Edits picked up slightly in the past 12 months but participation is still low.[5]
• Reason for running: "...running for ArbCom due to the low number of candidates."

Previous experience as an Arbitrator might be valuable but I have concerns that they will be available enough and/or that they might prematurely relinquish their seat. There have been times that the Committee has come under heavy criticism for its remedies; on the basis of their answers to questions, I'm not wholly convinced that they would look beyond the complainer's claims in order to better understand the issues at stake to avoid an undue punishment or even a wrong conviction.
Answers to user questions on his previous runs for Arbcom were more convincing, but answers to my questions at this election are mediocre and possibly reflect some degree of disinterest due to his having been the instigator of my Arbcom desysoping case. The number of candidates has picked up slightly since he offered to run, so I can't really make my mind up if this user would really be a team player and conscientious adjudicator. He is the least suitable candidate and there are other candidates to consider.
Update: It's a bit late now on 29 November when the vast majority of votes have been cast to be adding anything to this guide which was one of the first to be published, but for the benefit of any late voters, I would just like to reinforce my opinion that this candidate is by far the least suitable for the role of Arbitrator. They have confirmed their disinterest in looking beyond the complainer's claims in order to better understand the issues at stake. Wrong temperament, wrong attitude, and lack of commitment to the project.

Primefac

• Total edits: 165,000
• Mainspace: 58,000
• Drama boards: 1,202 (ANI 280)
• Is admin: Yes, 2017 (111/21/4) My vote Also Bureaucrat, Oversighter
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Regular since 2015 [6]
• Reason for running: expects to see from ArbCom that members will be transparent, fair, and participate in the process more than simply "casting down opinions from on high".

Long-time de facto coordinator of AfC and we worked well together to improve some of its basic systems. He certainly cares more about Wikipedia than his career in it. Excellent answers to my questions. Being able to accurately close (or co-close) complex RfCs demonstrates an excellent attention to detail which presupposes that Primafac would look beyond the surface of claims made at and during requests for arbitration and expose any that might be frivolous, disingenuous, or just plain vindictive. Would make a busy, and exceptionally fair arbitrator but it would take him away from other very valuable work and AfC might suffer from lack of strong leadership.

TonyBallioni

*Total edits: 50,100

• Mainspace: 8,900
• Drama boards: High. ANI 580, AN 940,m AE 270, BN 145
• Is admin: Yes, 2017 (224/3/2) My vote. CheckUser, Oversighter
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Registered in 2007 but did not begin regular editing until end 2016. Significant drop since late 2018[7]
• Reason for running: Various, including being critical of the Committee.

...this ArbCom has proven itself to be the most unfair and overactive that we have seen in recent memory. [8] Tony has become a highly visible user and has demonstrated an aptitude for being extremely fair, empathetic, and understanding. High level of admin work and actions, takes policing the project seriously but not authoritatively. Possibly a career Wikipedian, but does not necessarily run with the mainstream and is known to have been critical of the Committee. Does not do or say anything without having carefully examined and evaluated a situation and its possible consequences: "would action by the arbitration committee be more likely to actively help the situation beyond what the community can do in addition to falling within the committee’s scope. If the answer there isn’t “yes”, I wouldn’t be inclined to act." I'm sure his answers were not designed to be what he thought I would like to hear, but they are indeed the best responses to my questions. Tony would be a first-class member of a committee that will probably always be a controversial group of people.

Bradv

• Total edits 34,500
• Mainspace 10,000
• Drama boards ANI 169, AN 116
• Is admin: Yes, 2019 (173/8/2) My vote
• Former arbitrator: Yes
• Editing pattern: Regular only since May 2018. Registered in 2008 and made around 5,000 edits in that year but was them almost totally absent until May 2018.[9]
• Reason for running: Reelection for a second consecutive term on the Arbitration Committee. Claims to "have fought to increase communication and transparency in order to maintain a high level of trust in the committee. I have tried my best to do the right thing, even when it was difficult or unpopular."

IMO the previous appointment to this Committee came too hard on the heels of being ‘promoted’ to admin. While accepting sufficient qualities for adminship, my support of that RfA in August 2019 did not condone the dismissal of the Donna Strickland draft at AfC. What we have here, IMO, is a career Wikipedian. Despite their explanation/apology in The Signpost for declining the Donna Strickland article, as explained clearly by Ched in that same RfA. BradV appears to not accord sufficient importance to examining the claims of ‘evidence’ at Arbcom cases for veracity. I echo these thoughts of Ched in last year’s ACE, (which I also opposed): The declined Strictland article doesn't bother me nearly as much as their "not my fault" attitude. Their RfA often came across as an entitlement, and once they got the extra buttons their postings as an arb clerk seemed to take on an air of "respect mah authoritah" that I didn't care for. I'm just not seeing the humility or compassion I need to see in a candidate. Not enough experience, and a bit too much ego for my tastes. Although as an arbitrator he has once claimed "We have a duty to perform a thorough examination of all the facts" the answers to my questions do not appear to follow that and I interpret them to mean that he assumes that all 'evidence' is factually correct and needs no further examination, i.e. for better or for worse, justice will be 'shown' to be done and the role of the Committee is more or less to rubber stamp the consensus of the participants. That said, I was impressed by his approach to the proposed remedies in the case of Jytdog. I may of course be wrong on all counts but possibly an empty seat would be a better solution.

Scottywong

• Total edits: 21,800
• Mainspace: 4,000
• Drama boards: ANI 520, AN100,
• Is admin: Yes. 2012 (89/4/11).My vote
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Very sporadic. Many long, very quiet periods. The low mainspace edit count does not reflect the huge amount of time spent on NPP, researching for improvements to the way Wikipedia works and, developing some essential bots.
• Reason for running: "A renewed interest in doing my part to help this project continue to succeed, and I believe that ArbCom is an important part of ensuring that that happens."

Anyone could run afoul of Eric Corbett who (diffs exist) was perfectly capable of harassing and insulting other users with little or no provocation. Good, thoughtful answers to my questions. I'm biased of course because in previous years he and I collaborated very closely for a long time on matters NPP and obtaining the first overwhelming consensus for WP:ACTRIAL. Having Scotty on the Committee would be very interesting and with the low number of candidates it would certainly be better than leaving an empty seat.

CaptainEek

• Total edits: 17,300
• Mainspace: 6,100
• Drama boards: ANI 447
• Is admin: Yes, since May 2020 (175/55/10) My vote (opposed)
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Joined 2014, did not edit until mid 2018.[10]
• Reason for running:" I believe I bring an extremely cool head to ArbCom. As an OTRS agent I am familiar with handling the mass amounts of sensitive emails the committee receives. Most of all, I believe deeply in Wikipedia, and want to see it succeed."

Thoughtful answers to my questions. Candidature possibly comes too soon after 'promotion' to sysop and may not be entirely aware of what being a Committee member involves.

L235

• Total edits: 22,700
• Mainspace: 4,300
• Drama boards: Low. ANI 25
• Is admin: Yes 2018 (240/4/4) My vote CheckUser, Oversighter (2019)
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Sporadic.
• Reason for running: "I've spent the last five years as a clerk observing ArbCom work (and occasionally not work), and I'd like to bring some of those insights to the committee."

Appears to conform to a widely held view that at least some parts of the scope of Arbcom and its procedures are overly complex and bureaucratic, and indeed some experienced users (and former Arbs even) claim that ArbCom is a broken process. Being a clerk for a long time is often a stepping stone to membership of the Committee and Kevin is certainly aware of the things that are wrong with the Committee.

Even if accepting a case might be justified, there is no need for its process to be brutal. I am alluding here of course to Q5 of the recent RfC closure which L235 co-drafted. Clerks are required to remain neutral, but IMO clerking overall in recent times has not generally been 100% effective and clerks may not have intervened when perhaps they should have used their powers. For example, IMO, in cases where perceived incivility is being treated, unrelated or uncivil/vindictive user comments and personal attacks should be addressed and not left on the case pages with impunity. This does not instill confidence in fairness and neutrality, especially where it is observed by a clerk of some 5 years standing that ArbCom 'occasionally does not work', and 'pledge[s] to bring to this role empathy, thoughtfulness, and care'.

BDD

• Total edits: 124,700
• Mainspace: 58,000
• Drama boards: None that I have found
• Is admin: Yes, 2013 (119/14/4) My vote In those days (pre Dec 2015 reform), over 100 supports was considered very good.
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Registered 2014 but only made a handful of edits until 2012. Low since June 2017.[11]
• Reason for running: "Wikipedia has been a constant and a big part of my life; I'm a true believer and want to help out however I can." Only running because the election is 'running short of nominees'.

BDD is essentially a content editor with a speciality, if any, on redirects. Insufficient participation in drama related issues to demonstrate how they would be as an arbitrator. I have concerns that they will be available enough and/or that they might prematurely relinquish their seat. An admirable reason for wanting to run in this election - which needs some courage - and no doubts as to their maturity and seriousness but perhaps now that there are at least enough candidates to fill the seats (if they all get 50%), there will be users among them who have more of the right kind of experience.

Barkeep49

• Total edits: 28,100
• Mainspace: 8,100
• Drama boards: Relatively low. ANI 240, AN 210
• Is admin: Yes. Since 2019 - just over a year ago (233/5/3) My vote Also OTRS.
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Registered 2005 but did not begin regularly editing until March 2018.[12]
• Reason for running: Various

Has accumulated many rights in a short period since editing regularly and is a good allrounder. A dedicated Wikipedian. Has been a mainstay of NPP as a de facto coordinator and that project will almost certainly suffer greatly from lack of his excellent leadership if he shifts his focus to Committee work. Good answers to my questions and while I have no other real doubts as to his suitability, this does come a bit hard on the heels after obtaining Adminship. The Committee hasn't always exercised the best judgement and many candidates do not live up to their nomination speeches once elected, but if Barkeep can live up to his, Arbcom would be a much better place and with the endorsement from Risker nothing much can go wrong.

Hawkeye7

• Total edits: 104,000
• Mainspace: 58,000
• Drama boards: very rare
• Is admin: No (desysoped 10 years ago)
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: regular editor but dropped off significantly since early 2017
• Reason for running: Knows what it is like to be on the losing end of an ArbCom case and strongly believes that ArbCom would be enhanced by the presence of at least one non-admin.

Hawkeye is totally dedicated to Wikipedia and work has been truly impressive. Being on the Committee would take him away from all that. IMO in the interests of access to deleted material, and some experience closing contentious issues as an admin, an arbitrator needs the admin toolset.

Prognosis

Irrespective of how I will vote (see above), these are not endorsements but I tip the result of the poll (in no particular order) as: *TonyBallioni

• Maxim
• Barkeep
• Bradv
• Primefac
• CapitainEek
• BDD
• Runner(s) up with 50% or more: Hard to say. Possibly Guerillero

Result

Exactly as I predicted, but with so few candidates it wasn't so hard to guess. Surprised however, that every candidate received at least 50% which would have qualified even the runners up for a place. I hope they won't be needed. I hope to see Scottywong and SMcCandlish among next year's candidates.