Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates

2022 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 18:34 (UTC), Tuesday, 24 December 2024 (Purge)

Thank you for participating in the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

Shortcut

WP:ACE2022/C

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections appear below.

Eligibility criteria

An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who:

(i) has a registered account and has made at least 500 mainspace edits before 1 November 2022,

(ii) is not subject to active blocks or site-bans,

(iii) meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data, is willing to sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement,^[a] and

(iv) has disclosed any previous or alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee before the close of nominations do not need to be publicly disclosed).

Caution: Candidates should be aware that they are likely to receive considerable internal and external scrutiny. External scrutiny may include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities; previous candidates have had personal details revealed and unwanted contact made with employers and family. We are unable to prevent this and such risks will continue if you are successful.

Important: To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators.

Statements must:

(i) be submitted after 00:00 UTC on 13 November 2022 and until 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2022;

(ii) not exceed a limit of 400 words^[b] (although candidates are free to link to a longer statement if they wish);

(iii) confirm that the candidate will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data;

(iv) include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee;

(v) be created using the inputbox below, by appending your username to the existing text, clicking the button, and following the instructions.

Applications are considered complete only when properly filled out and transcluded by the deadline. Deadlines will be strictly enforced regardless of technical problems that may occur. Candidates are advised to have their application ready early.

The nomination period is now over.

Footnotes

^
From the Wikimedia Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy:
Because we believe that safeguarding the privacy of the Wikimedia community is an important Wikimedia value, those who have access to nonpublic personal data need to:
- Be at least 18 years old (except email response team members, who must be at least 16 years old);
- Provide contact information; and
- Sign a confidentiality agreement.
^ The mandatory disclosure of alternate accounts and declaration of intent to comply with the WMF identification policy are exempt from the 400-word limit, although candidates are encouraged to be concise.

Standing candidates

Click to shuffle candidates

Barkeep49

Introduction

I'm Barkeep49, and I'm running for a second term on the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). I am running because of my deep belief in Wikipedia and the role it plays in the world. Providing high quality information, for free, has always been important but feels more so in today's world. As an Arbitrator, I want to continue doing what I can to ensure our community has the environment and space to advance our mission.

Work

My primary work, when not on ArbCom, is

writing articles, I have a couple dozen good articles and 2 featured lists,
closing difficult Requests for Comment and Article for Deletion discussions, and
being a part of New Page Patrol.

The health of the community is never far from mind. That is why I served on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines drafting committee and have been a frequent nominator of administrators.

Why I’m running and what I’ll do

I'm running because I find the work of being an Arb challenging and rewarding and because it's a way for me to give back to a project and community that's incredibly important to me.

I set out an ambitious platform when I last ran and am proud of what I accomplished as an Arb. If elected again you can be confident that I will…

do the work. I try to actively engage in all elements of ArbCom work and to be there to help and support my colleagues.
remain accessible and responsive. Sometimes when communicating with ArbCom it's hard to know if anyone is listening. I try to show we are by sending confirmation emails, participating in Workshop discussions during a case, and responding to talk page messages.
listen carefully. To make good decisions it's vital to learn from others, understand their perspectives, and consider their thinking.
strive to improve the project. If something isn't working, I like to try to find ways to improve it with-in the scope of ArbCom. I am open to trying new things, and equally open to admitting when those new things haven't worked. Fundamentally I believe it is important for us to try to do better because we can be better.

Platform

For more on my accomplishments, my approach, and ideas for upcoming work, I encourage you to visit my complete platform.

Requirements

I am over 18, have thousands of mainspace edits, have no bans or blocks, no alternative accounts, and have and will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data.

I hope I’ve earned your support.

Robert McClenon

I am Robert McClenon, and I am submitting my name as a candidate for ArbCom. For nearly ten years I have been active at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, both in mediating disputes, sometimes simple and sometimes complex, and in assessing disputes to determine what the mixture of content and conduct was.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel which is elected to resolve disputes in the English Wikipedia that the community has not been able to resolve in any other manner, typically serious conduct disputes that divide the community. It is my opinion that ArbCom should accept somewhat more cases, and should tacitly encourage the community to submit case requests for issues that divide the community. In particular, some disputes go unresolved too long, and further divide the community, because the community tries unsuccessfully to resolve them, and then the community continues to try unsuccessfully to resolve them. In my opinion, ArbCom should let it be known that it is ready to accept disputes that have either been open at WP:ANI for an excessively long time or have been opened at WP:ANI repeatedly. By the time that a dispute fills multiple pages of full screens on a laptop computer, it may not be feasible for the community to sort out the facts from the opinions; a deliberative quasi-judicial procedure may work better. When editors with page-long block logs are considered by WP:ANI, either on a block review or unblock request, or on a complaint from another editor, it may be time for an evidentiary hearing, both to decide whether the editor is a net positive or a net negative, and to identify other editors who may have been engaged in provocation or taunting. ArbCom should open more cases than it currently does. If that means that ArbCom should reduce its back-office load of invisible appeals, then ArbCom should reduce its back-office load of invisible appeals. If there are questions, I will prepare a more detailed statement about what sorts of cases ArbCom should and should not hear.

I have never edited Wikipedia for pay, and will never edit Wikipedia for pay. ~~I am qualified and ready to sign the agreement for access to sensitive data. In other words, I will sign the non-disclosure agreement if elected.~~I have signed the non-disclosure agreement for access to sensitive data. I have two alternate accounts, User:McClenon Test and User:McClenon mobile.

Guerillero

Hi all, I am Tom and I am an Admin, Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) Clerk, and CheckUser. I previously was on ArbCom for the 2015–2016 term and was an Oversighter from 2013 until 2018. I am, however, a content creator at heart with 1 FP, 2 FAs, 6 FLs, 12 GAs, and 43 DYKs. My work has been mostly focused on the folk music, higher education, and low-art of the United States.

Due to my close to a decade of experience in the arbitration sphere, I have developed some opinions on the arbitration process. Many of them have filtered into my Guide to Arbitration. The workshop continues to be my least favorite phase of the arbitration process. It is mostly utilized as an MMA octagon for the parties to fight in while the arbs review the evidence rather than as a way to help solve disputes. It is foolish to expect editors who have never been involved in arbitration to become scholars of the committee who can write their draft of a proposed decision with no assistance. During the summer, I worked on a draft of an improved workshop. It adds hints to guide parties and unburies the "Questions to the parties" to try to get the arbs to take part in the phase. It is a small step, but I think it could improve the process dramatically.

I am one of the cadre of Arbitration Enforcement admins who have been waiting for the committee's overhaul of discretionary sanctions for the past two years. It is ridiculous that this is the third election in a row where candidates can run on DS reform. I don't know if the holdup is due to disinterest, filibuster, or horsetrading, but after 3 years, we are past the time for work behind closed doors. The committee released a draft this year. It deserves a public up or down vote after the hundreds of hours of community time that went into providing feedback for it and on it.

The modern committee spends a large proportion of its time dealing with appeals of CheckUser and Oversight blocks. This is a misallocation of resources. There is a group of people who are active CheckUsers and Oversighters: the functionaries. The committee should explore ceding this work to the functionaries en banc rather than keeping it in-house.

I would be honored to have your vote in this year's election.

The fine print

I am over 18 years of age
I have access to CU and already have identified to the WMF
The only other account worth taking about is In actu (talk · contribs) any other account was for a single test or a failed idea.

GeneralNotability

Hello everyone, I'm GeneralNotability and I am running for a seat on the Arbitration Committee. I bring two specialties to the table: anti-abuse/anti-harassment (particularly in terms of the CheckUser tool) and keeping the mail answered.

I've been an SPI clerk since shortly after I was elected as an admin in May 2020, and I was appointed as a CU a little over a year ago. I've spent a lot of time dealing with abuse – LTAs, spammers, undisclosed paid editing operations. That's the role I've grown into during my time on Wikipedia: keeping the place safe and harassment-free so that other folks can spend their time doing what they enjoy. Joining ArbCom is a natural extension of that; I know the committee does a lot of behind-the-scenes anti-abuse work, and I think my experience will be helpful there. As for the CheckUser tool itself, I've learned a lot about it in the past year and have grown into a pretty confident CU. Since ArbCom is responsible for both handling anti-abuse cases that involve CheckUser and overseeing English Wikipedia CUs, I think my expertise will be quite useful.

In terms of keeping the mail answered: during CUOS2021, I said I would work the checkuser and paid queues. I did. When I was appointed, there were hundreds of tickets in both queues and the backlogs for both went back over a year. As I write this, there's maybe ten unanswered tickets between the two queues and the average response comes within a week, and I worked something like 80% of all tickets handled in the past year. I want to bring that to ArbCom, too: if an editor emails the committee in good faith, they deserve both timely acknowledgment of their message and (if appropriate) prompt action.

And as a final thought: every account that gets pulled into an ArbCom case has a real live human behind the keyboard, and I want to make sure everyone who goes through the process is treated as a real live human. Arbitration is a confusing, bureaucratic, and stressful process, and the least we can do is show compassion, understanding, and assume good faith. Thank you for your consideration.

Disclosures: I am identified to the WMF and have signed the meta:ANPDP. A long time ago, I edited as geekboy72, and I currently use SubjectiveNotability on untrusted devices and GeneralBotability for bot tasks; I've also created (and blocked) a couple of doppelganger accounts.

BoldLuis

I am BoldLuis and running for a seat in the Abritration Committee. I am a jurist and can help with the task.

I do not have any other accounts.
I confirm that I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data and are willing to sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement

--BoldLuis (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L235

Hi, I'm Kevin. I've been editing for eight years and have served on the Arbitration Committee for the last two years. I'm running for a second term because I love our project and what we stand for. We today provide high-quality information through an open, volunteer, consensus-based system to the world for free — an incredible feat and one worth preserving.

Serving on the Committee is not always easy, but it is a vital task, and I am deeply proud of the work of the two cohorts I have served with.

During my first term, I strove to address problems head-on, especially when it's hard; to keep an open mind; to act evenhandedly but compassionately; to seek information before making decisions; to compromise and facilitate consensus; and to treat all with dignity and respect.

If I am elected to a second term, I will focus on:

Discretionary sanctions. During my first term, I was a drafting arbitrator on discretionary sanctions review. While the formal review process is nearing completion, much work remains. I hope to focus on the hard implementation work of writing easier-to-understand templates, setting up the new system of topic-specific guidance pages, responding to feedback, and helping folks with any growing pains the system might experience.
The clerk system. I was a clerk for almost six years, and after two years as an arbitrator, I think the clerk system is not well suited for today's ArbCom. Our dedicated and hardworking clerks spend much time to have little work to do (clerk training now takes 6+ months because there's little work for trainees to be trained on). At the same time, ArbCom's internal processes are in desperate need of clerical assistance that the clerks currently can't help with. While I don't have all the answers, I will advocate for streamlining the clerks' current tasks while exploring ways in which the clerks can relieve ArbCom's administrative burden in more areas.
ArbCom's relations with the Stewards, the Ombuds Commission, the WMF, sister project ArbComs, and similar bodies, such as the forthcoming UCoC Coordinating Committee. These groups have an impact on ArbCom's work, and I will prioritize more regular communication with them.
Block appeals. Checkuser and other block appeals take a massive portion of ArbCom's effort, but ArbCom is not well positioned to handle most appeals. I will explore ways to reduce the appellate burden and speed up the disposition of appeals.

Declaration: As a current arbitrator, I am identified to the Wikimedia Foundation and will continue to comply with the nonpublic information policy. On occasion I edit using L236 (talk · contribs); I also have some non-editing accounts.

SilkTork

The bare bones are that I joined Wikipedia in 2006 because I wanted to be part of what I feel is one of the most significant cooperative ventures undertaken by mankind. From early on I was impressed by the Wikipedia community and the rules we create here to make this place work. I am proud to be part of that community, and proud to help out. From early on I discovered I didn't just want to write or improve articles (and I have done a fair bit of that - for example, working with others on The Kinks and George Harrison, and taking Covent Garden to GA then FA level largely by myself; taking part in GA reviewing (over 200 reviews so far, including Talk:Vagina/GA1 and Talk:Clitoris/GA1), but I also wanted to get involved in dispute resolution, writing guidelines, organising categories, closing discussions, etc. The nuts and bolts of the project that is so essential. I became an admin in 2008 as the second time of asking, and a 'Crat in 2020. I served on ArbCom twice: January 2012 – December 2013, and January 2019 – September 2019, when I resigned after seeing the Framgate situation to its conclusion. That was an extremely demanding and testing time for the Committee and the individual members, and I'm proud that we didn't crumble, and that we stood up to WMF and did the right thing. If elected I will be pleased to work again with WTT, who was a part of both that Framgate Committee, and the first Committee I worked on. I've been impressed by how the current Committee have handled cases firmly and swiftly this year. I respect the various individuals, and would be proud to work alongside them.

I will comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, and have signed the agreement. My other account is User:SilkTorkAway. I created User:SiikTook in December 2008. It's never been used. I gave my identity credentials to the Foundation back in 2011, though am happy to do so again if required.

CaptainEek

Howdy hello folks! After sailing as an Arbitrator for the past two years, I am again looking to volunteer my time and energy to serve aboard the good ship ArbCom. During my term, I was the drafting Arb on two cases. I oversaw DS reform alongside L235 and Wugapodes this year, and I'm proud to say that it is up for vote. I continue to focus on ideas for reforming ArbCom's processes, and making the Committee as efficient and effective as possible.

Much of ArbCom's work happens behind the scenes. I was active on nearly a thousand ArbCom email threads, and sent well over a thousand emails advancing the Committee's work over my term. I believe in fairness, sensitivity, and minimizing bureaucracy when it comes to the Committee's private workload.

The minority of ArbCom's work is in cases, but they are certainly the Committee's most dramatic element. Cases should be as short as possible, and as drama free as possible. Cases should also be open to unusual and creative solutions. We must understand that the editors who come before us are people too. I strive to avoid simply voting along group lines.

I believe in transparency, and advocating for the Community. In the last two years, I am proud to have attended almost all of ArbCom's monthly meetings with WMF staff, each time being a voice for the Community's interests. I will vigorously push for the Community at every turn. I think this will be extremely important in the next few years as UCOC enforcement takes shape. I oppose a "global ArbCom", which would undermine local governance.

When I am not Arbing, I love writing about birds and history. I have two FA's to my name, as well as a variety of other accolades. During my term, I'm most proud to have taken Gallic Wars to GA.

Ultimately, I am running because I deeply believe in Wikipedia's mission to present the sum of all human knowledge. I think the best way to achieve that is to have a harmonious and welcoming community. Without our editors, we are nothing. We must focus on not only retaining, but also recruiting editors, and the decisions that ArbCom makes have an outsized impact on that. I am honored to have been on the Committee. I hope that you will again empower me to serve as your representative. Smooth sailing.

Disclosure: I have one alt account: AdmiralEek. I meet the WMF's criteria for access to non-public data and have already signed the various NDA's.

Tamzin

As an SPI clerk and an admin active in arbitration enforcement, and someone who's written an article that falls into four discretionary sanctions areas, I spend a lot of time operating in the shadow of ArbCom. I see how the Committee's decisions trickle down to affect the thousand admins it oversees and the thousands more users who edit in DS areas. Overall, I like the direction things have gone in the decade since I joined this project. I'm particularly impressed by recent committees' efforts to better hold admins accountable for misconduct and the ongoing efforts to make the discretionary sanctions system less bureaucratic. There's also room for improvement. ArbCom still struggles to keep up with sockmasters in DS areas. ArbCom still sometimes forgets it can't make policy. And, even as the person who wrote Wikipedia:There's a reason you don't know, I can see that ArbCom is often opaque purely for the sake of being opaque, particularly in its supervision of the CheckUser and Oversight teams, where its preference for private warnings and even private restrictions keeps the community out of the loop about the behavior of those who should be most trusted.

My philosophy of ArbCom's role is: Community processes work well most of the time, and any time it's possible to defer something to the community, ArbCom should. At the same time, ArbCom should never be afraid to act decisively in situations where no other entity can.

I am over 18 and willing to sign the ANPDP. Sock drawer and other disclosures can be found at User:Tamzin/Disclosures and commitments, which also has an "if elected" accountability subsection.

Moneytrees

Hi, I’m Moneytrees, and I’m volunteering to serve on Arbcom. I became an administrator in 2020 and have been consistently editing since 2018. I deal primarily with preventing and removing copyright violations and plagiarism, and work heavily at Contributor copyright investigations (CCI). I’ve contributed to the completion of over 130 CCIs since I began editing in the area.

In 2020 I coordinated the Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, focused on completing the then largest CCI in Wikipedia’s history with 24,563 articles initially listed. After countless hours of work by me and several other editors, I completed the CCI in early 2021. Work can be brutal and time consuming, but it’s given me several valuable lessons.

I’ve become skilled at looking through article histories and understanding the content and context of edits. I’ve learned how important the prevention vs. punishment distinction is, and that the worst habits need to be addressed early to prevent them from becoming ingrained. I’ve learned the burnout and struggle that is shared between all editors: we need to work to assist and protect those who work away in the trenches, those who ensure important topics are covered with accuracy and quality, and those who combat increasingly complex abuse and spam. Most importantly, despite ups and downs, I have hope for the future of the site.

I think these next few years will be quiet but important ones for the committee. While part of me thinks that the Universal code of Conduct might end up fizzling out into nothing or have no significant impact on the English Wikipedia, I will still strenuously advocate for local governance and dispute resolution.

I am anti–complacency, anti–forgone conclusions, and anti–nonsense. I am pro–accountability, which includes holding myself to a high standard and I think that WP:LEARNINGISIMPORTANT. I do not want others to be afraid of their past mistakes, and I’m willing to change my mind on issues. I will actively engage with community emails and questions. I’m willing to go against the grain and will do what I think is The Right Thing. There is extended information at my track record.

I had never planned on running for Arbcom, but after a recommendation that I run in 2022 from high up, I began to think differently. Ultimately, running now is my choice. I am over 18 years of age and have signed the necessary NDAs for access to non-public information. I have an alt account I’ve never used, an alt account I used but then forgot the password to, and an embarrassing failed joke alt from my early editing days. Hey, I’m not afraid of my mistakes– and neither should you!

Primefac

Hello, for those who do not know me, I am Primefac. I have been an editor since 2012, subsequently being granted the administrative, oversight, and bureaucratic permissions over the years, before being elected to ArbCom in 2020. In addition to Arbitration work I am most heavily involved in TfD, AfC, history mergers, and copyright violations.

When I initially ran for ArbCom, I had recently helped close the anti-harassment RfC and had planned to implement some of the suggestions and changes that were seen as problems within the Arbitration system. While I cannot point to a single proposed motion that drastically changed how we do things, I have been diligently advocating for the Arbitrators to keep those community concerns in mind as we process emails and debate the merits of cases. There is still work to be done on that front, but so far I am pleased with that progress and am always open to further improvement suggestions. Another reason is that I am working on some long-term goals in collaboration with the WMF to better increase the safety and well-being of our editor base, in particular our newer editors. In other words, there is always more work to be done, and I would like continue being one of the people doing it, even if the trade-off is a 1000-email-threads-per year inbox.

Disclosures: I have and will continue to comply with all NDAs I may sign. I have one bot alternate account (PrimeBOT).

Sdrqaz

Hi there. I'm Sdrqaz, an editor of nearly seven years and an administrator.

Just as when I became an administrator, I am running in this election because there is important work that needs to be done, and I believe I can make a difference.

The Committee and wider community need and deserve someone who is thorough and willing to do work that receives little recognition. We need someone who is willing to do the utmost to protect the project, while conscious that actions we take to protect the encyclopaedia can feel deeply personal and often lead to disillusionment and retirement.

I believe I am that person.

My work has led to five articles going on the Main Page, with two more on the way – I have written on legal and parliamentary procedure, crime novels, an Iraqi defector, and a play on a certain cuddly Japanese forest spirit. While my duty to the community as an administrator has meant that I cannot spend as much time as I would like writing, protecting the encyclopaedia has been my governing principle, be it literally protecting articles or elsewhere.

The Committee, both collectively and individually, is entrusted with grave responsibilities and powers. While there are times when it must act swiftly and decisively, its duty of care must shine in everything it does. The Committee must act with caution and be clear communicators with the community, as the Committee serves it above all else. I spend much time reading discussions but only participating when I feel that my input is needed; I will bring this care and readiness to listen to the table. As a representative of the English Wikipedia, I will also advocate for its interests and autonomy when interacting with other bodies in the global movement.

I look forward to listening to the community and welcome its questions.

Sdrqaz (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to election regulations, I confirm that I have signed the confidentiality agreement, having met the access to non-public personal data policy. I have only ever edited using this account and an alternate account for public devices. I additionally have an unused Doppelgänger account.

[1] From the Wikimedia Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy:
Because we believe that safeguarding the privacy of the Wikimedia community is an important Wikimedia value, those who have access to nonpublic personal data need to:
Be at least 18 years old (except email response team members, who must be at least 16 years old);

Provide contact information; and

Sign a confidentiality agreement.

[2] Be at least 18 years old (except email response team members, who must be at least 16 years old);

[3] Provide contact information; and

[4] Sign a confidentiality agreement.

[2] The mandatory disclosure of alternate accounts and declaration of intent to comply with the WMF identification policy are exempt from the 400-word limit, although candidates are encouraged to be concise.

[a]

[b]