Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Discussion

< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024 | Candidates

2024 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 08:45 (UTC), Sunday, 12 January 2025 (Purge)

  • Thank you for participating in the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
  • You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections. To read candidate statements and their Q&As during the nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024.

CaptainEek

edit

Eekcited to see her running

edit

Happy to see Eek running for re-eleciton. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me as well. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Mkdw talk 09:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like Eek's answer about LLMs on Wikipedia

edit

She was interviewed by The New York Times, relevant section here. As an A.I. skeptic, I was relieved to hear someone- ANYONE!- in charge of a popular website express skepticism towards "innovating" with A.I. to replace human effort. Maybe this isn't super relevant to ArbCom, but then again, maybe it will be. --FPTI (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Step Sideways

edit

No nonsense and fair

edit

Probably better known as Beeblebrox, Just Step Sideways is fair but strict and doesn't doesn't suffer fools gladly. JSS is not the only arbitrator to populate the Wikipediocracy forum, which incidentally is much less the WP hate site it once was and many respected Wikipedians, admins, and arbitrators are or have been among its regular contributors. Ironically he was sanctioned by Arbcom that often sees its role as being obliged to settle issues with sanctions rather than with thorough investigation, even throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I have met and spent a whole day with Beeb in real life and I know him to be a thoroughly dependable and dedicated Wikipedian. Admin for 15 years, 5 of them already on Arbcom, Beeb hasn't thrown his hat in the ring just to make up the numbers, nor is he seeking to climb a greasy pole - he's precisely the kind of person the community needs on the Committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate answers

edit

While I can't say I'm 100% on board with JSS's offsite activity, I respect that he's not resorting solely to "politician answers" like many would in this situation. A couple of the questions here feel like the arbcom equivalent of WP:GRAVEDANCING, and I'd probably be unamused too. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I apprecciate that. I'd make a lousy politician because I'm really not good at evasive non-answers.
I am running because from the outside it seems clear something is just wrong with the current committee and it needs help. Exactly what the problem is is less clear but the effects certainly are. I am not running to thumb my nose at the committee or make some kind of point, but at the same time I'm not going to cave in to pressure to disavow WPO entirely because of the actions of exactly one commenter there. If I did so I'd obviously be lying anyway so that leads me to question what the actual point of it was.
I'm also not thrilled that an arb with a year left on his term is going on the attack here. Usually arbs whose terms are not up don't try to interfere with the ACE process. I would've hoped that my prolonged answer to the first question about this was sufficient and he wouldn't post these accusatory questions, which I was already aware of,due to him emailing them to both me and the entire committee earlier. He has since apologized for doing that, and I had hoped it would lead to him considering not going on the attack here, but I guess not. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm being alluded to ... I copied the committee in a spirit of openness. It was a mistake for which I was rightly taken to task, and for which I unreservedly apologised. That was the full extent of my apology. I was not apologising for giving you 48 hours advance notice of the questions I asked. I don't view feeling out the scope of a candidate's promise as an attack. Had you expanded the scope of your promise regarding the arbcom mailing list I would not have felt the need to pursue clarity. Cabayi (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the committee in a spirit of openness. This directly contradicts the reason you gave me when you apologized for it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A strong personality

edit

I've served on multiple committees with Beeblebrox / JSS, and have always found him to be an excellent colleague. He has been willing to get involved in decisions, eloquently explain his point of view, listen and change his opinion and admit if he's been wrong about things, engage with the community. Indeed, he's checked all the markers I'd be looking for an in an Arbitrator - which is why his suspension was so upsetting to see.
I am not aware of the full circumstances - so I cannot say that the committee was wrong in their decision - however, what I can say is that Beeblebrox does still hold my trust. We have a good enough working relationship that if I see him doing something stupid, I feel confident I can tell him directly and he will act to improve the situation. I would hope that he would do the same for me. WormTT(talk) 11:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am, as you know, inclined to hold others to account when they do something stupid, but in your case you just don't give me many opportunities. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An outside perspective

edit

I asked Q1 fairly skeptical of JSS. I trust that the Committee knows what they're doing, and that they wouldn't have taken the actions they did without good reason. But JSS seems to have exactly the attitude and the qualities I'd want from an Arb, and I've heard nothing but positive comments from his peers. After a lot of internal debate, I've landed here: Even if JSS made mistakes, he has promised to stay far away from the red line he crossed. Supporting JSS's candidacy does not mean I have to absolve him of his past mistakes, which I (still) do not have the full picture of. I only have to accept that all evidence says he would be a good Arb, and trust that he will change his behavior to dump the baggage that weighed him down. Toadspike [Talk] 23:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable and selfless

edit

I'm not sure if anyone else had noticed it yet - but in the lead up to the election (after nominations opened but before they closed) - JSS (after self-noming) was posting on the talk page of many users to encourage them to run in the election, so that we would have a better pool of candidates. This would (obviously) reduce their chances, but they did it anyway. I think this says everything about why they are perfect for Arbcom, along with their neutral, reasonable and helpful contributions to noticeboards like WP:ANI. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer

edit

I asked a tough question and got a solid answer. 👍 Leijurv (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent candidate

edit

As I've said before, I think JSS is one of the best arbitrator candidates I know of. There are lots of candidates that run for arbitrator. Thing is, notwithstanding all the random cruft that I am sure comes into the mailbox or finds its way onto the chore list, ArbCom is ultimately a role where you need to decide on tough conduct situations in a fair but firm way. A lot of candidates, who I personally respect as editors and admins, aren't especially great at this. Bad ArbComs arise from arbitrators who are either unwilling to do anything (ie inactive), or unable to make tough decisions with tact, diplomacy, and maybe a bit of creativity. JSS I think is extremely good at this, and exactly who you want in an ArbCom. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive and unaccountable

edit

I have my share of bones to pick with institutional Wikipedia, so I'm not unsympathetic to Just Step Sideways's sense that being a critic isn't incompatible with the responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee. But Just Step Sideways crosses too many lines. When asked about information privacy, the candidate repeatedly redirects from one's own accountability to instead make a to-do about holding other arbitrators accountable for hypothetical future behavior. When asked about the functionaries list, the candidate gives a lawyer's answer and declines to make an overt commitment. And in question #5, the candidate's answer is, troublingly, false—a mild eye-roll by one person does not "yelled at by multiple people" make. Maybe the falsehood was inadvertent and unintended, but if that's the case, that makes me less confident in the candidate's ability to assess and discern cases and evidence as an Arbitrator. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good answers

edit

I don't normally comment too much on Arb candidates, but having read through the questions and answers to JSS, I find it a refreshing mix of perceptive insights and common sense. I think what gets lost in the mix sometimes is that editors with highly advanced permissions are human and can make mistakes, and criticism of their conduct can be perfectly legitimate.

I've also been involved in committees in real-life as well as online, and occasionally have to suggest action to disruptive conduct. The important thing to do in those situations is to be as diplomatic as possible and avoid antagonism at all cost. I think JSS recognises that, and I'm happy that he's calling out Arbs when they have erred in this way.

Gets my vote. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned

edit

An outstanding candidate

edit

ScottishFinnishRadish

edit

Fresh, enthusiastic candidate

edit

Concerns with actions relating to Nableezy

edit

Last December, SFR topic banned User:Nableezy for 90 days, later shortened to 30 days by appeal. I thought the block was disproportionate, and found allegations of Nableezy's supposed misconduct exaggerated, as did most of the commenters on that appeal. On its own, one bad block wouldn't be worth commenting on, but what troubles me most is the mentality on display by SFR. Reading between the lines, their statement that I determined... that there is persistent battleground behavior by many editors, and I acted to remove some of the worst actors temporarily, indicates to me that they think that the disruption in the WP:PIA area comes from most active editors there being exceptionally bad, rather than more fundamental IRL factors. I think that mentality (which is also behind the failed proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Motion 3: Involved participants) is exactly opposite of the truth, and that if anything, the few good faith, experienced editors we have in such areas should not be sanctioned liberally.

That alone, not great, but probably not enough for me to oppose this candidate. Except, a few hours ago, they opened their own AE threat against Nableezy, which is such an egregious misuse of the board for a content dispute, that it makes me doubt their ability to be an administrator, much less an arbitrator. Quite frankly it makes me wonder if they have a personal vendetta against Nableezy. Mach61 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR's since withdrawn that complaint, but starting the third report in a month against one editor, on absurd grounds, is still an unforgivible lapse in judgement to me. Mach61 19:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also concerning is Radish saying I know that I've blocked editors for similar comments on both the existence of Palestine and Israel [1]. I'd like to know what kind of blocks they have been dishing out. Their recusal from ARBPIA, if elected, is comforting, but I personally, wouldn't have gone around policing editors in a topic area I don't know shit about. — hako9 (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocks I've placed for similar comments were far beyond anything Nableezy has said. I don't think I logged any of them as I didn't bother invoking arbitration enforcement since it was basically run of the mill racism that I normally file under vandalism. Obviously I misread and misinterpreted what Nableezy said there, and that's certainly a black mark against me and it's not unreasonable to hold that against me. I have around 70 unilateral AE actions logged against editors this year in the ARBPIA area with quite a few appeals, none of which were successful (I think Nableezy's appeal of last years action happened this year, and their sanction was reduced on appeal), so it's not as if I've been flying off the handle. Again, I did Nableezy dirty with my recent filing and have apologized, and will continue to apologize.
    One thing I take issue with is gone around policing editors in a topic area I don't know shit about. There are around a half dozen or less admins working AE at any given time, a few more that patrol topics, and fifteen arbs. There are far more CTOPs than there are admins handling reports and if we expected a high level of topic knowledge from every admin we'd probably see very little participation at reports about Sri Lanka, Indian politics, referendums in Somalia, or any of the other topics that fall under our CTOPS. Additionally, arbitrators have to decide cases on topics that most of them quite likely know nothing about. How many arbs have knowledge of the history of the samurai class in Japan, the Shakespeare authorship question, Iranian politics, or tree shaping? Arbitrators and admins are routinely asked to use their judgement on topics they don't know shit about. That's one of the results of having a broad encyclopedia created and administered by volunteers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish I'm sorry my "reading between the lines" was incorrect. FYI, I first had that thought when I lurked at the AE appeal last year, and had planned to just place that mild note here without asking people to vote one way or the other. Then, when I came, I saw the recent thread and got really mad about it. I still plan on opposing you about it, actually, but since you already withdrew it and apologized it would be unfair of me to ask for any further reply from you, since you can't really do anything beyond that. So feel free to ignore this comment Mach61 18:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad we have an admin who's willing to sanction WP:UNBLOCKABLE POV pushers in contentious topics. Any effort to apply sanctions in topics like this is met with a forceful clamor from wikifriends, and ScottishFinnishRadish puts up with so much crap just to make CTOPs mildly better to work in. These sort of comments are exactly what you'd expect an admin to receive when they're doing a good job cleaning up after deeply embedded troublemakers. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    UNBLOCKABLE POV pushers with wikifriends. Hmmm big guy with big claim. Why don't you act on it then? — hako9 (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hako9 What exactly do you think "acting on it" would entail? Mach61 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If he thinks there is collusion between wikifriends, he should go to ani/ae with those claims, or keep his thoughts to himself. — hako9 (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to TBUA. The Kip (contribs) 20:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien I have no issue with holding tenured editors accountable (for example, I agree with most of ArbCom's recent desysop's, and the indefinite block for BrownHairedGirl), but in areas where good, experienced editors are at a premium, it's important to consider their behavior relative to others in the immediate context; note that in the AE appeal, many people pointed out that Nableezy was far from the worst actor in the relevant discussions. You could say this is whataboutism, but ultimately, civility sanctions exist to make the projectspace environment better, and if the space removed by sanctioning an experienced editor is taken by SPA's or sockpuppets or simply less competent, less-experienced editors, they have failed in their goal. Particularly in the PIA area, individual editors that piss of any side can end up being the targets of long-term harassment and goading to get them to stop editing; we should be very careful to not help the bad actors doing that.
    Also, a bit ridiculous to say these sort of comments are exactly what you'd expect an admin to receive when they're doing a good job cleaning up after deeply embedded troublemakers when I cited a sanction that was successfully appealed and a filing that SFR withdrew immediately. Mach61 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any shortage of experienced editors in ARBPIA. A lot of the problematic battleground behavior comes from highly experienced editors, who understand just how far each policy can be bent without risking heavy sanctions.
    "Successfully appealed" seems a bit misleading, as it was shortened by SFR himself: in the interest of wrapping this up, I'll propose a compromise. I'll cut the duration of the topic ban to 30 days, with a carve out for Nableezy to continue to assist Davidbena with their topic ban, with an assurance from Nableezy ...
    Some uninvolved admins were questioning the sanction based on conduct after the latest warning, but SFR later clarified that the sanction was for conduct over a broader period which included four warnings. I expect the sanction would have held if not for SFR's own compromise. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also very much agree with TBUA. - Amigao (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223

edit
  • I'll preface this by saying I've had little to no direct interaction with Simon, and therefore I don't have the best grip on what they'd potentially be like as an ArbCom member; I also think BilledMammal's questions were a bit too WP:POINTy for my liking (and the canvassing one was borderline inappropriate). That said, to be completely honest, I'm not impressed (arguably concerned) with their response to Swatjester and refusal to self-recuse from ARBPIA cases, even if their involvement isn't as extensive as other users - absolute debacles somewhat recently emerged over admins Red-tailed Hawk and Valereee having similarly "minimal" involvement in the area. The Kip (contribs) 00:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very concerned by the candidate's conduct. I see numerous examples of language such as "Go away" [2] , "Please feel free to go away" [3], "You aren't welcome here" [4], refusing to accept that referring to other editors as "parochial Americans" [5] is not appropriate and responding "do kindly take your complaint elsewhere", responding to what appears to be a valid edit warring warning from this month with "I think you might want to review WP:DTR", a 4IM BLP warning placed by an admin and substantiated by a second admin [6], and several messages regarding incivility and failure to AGF [7] [8] [9] [10]. I've only looked back as far as 2019 (and until this year they had made ~300 edits since 2019, so I consider this more recent than you might think). I cannot see how this editor's conduct is compatible with a position on ArbCom. You cannot tell anyone you don't want to talk to "go away" and "you aren't welcome here" when you're on the Arbitration Committee. And on top of all of that, before this month the candidate had 1 edit in September and then their most recent edits go back to May. There are numerous gaps in their editing history. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree declining to recuse from ARBPIA is a concern. Simon clearly has strong opinions there, making it difficult to expect impartial decision-making regardless of the quantity of his involvement. I was also confused by this "likely to become a POV fork" comment - surely an article can't retroactively become a POV fork? — xDanielx T/C\R 06:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was the last time a non-admin editor became an elected arbitrator, especially with CheckUser and Oversight permissions? I have a hard time searching for such non-admin nominees with successful elections. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Ho: It hasn't happened yet. We've had a few non-admins who came very close to being elected for ArbCom, but to date, only administrators have actually been voted in. The very first committee did include one editor who was not an administrator at the time (Gutza, who gained +sysop in 2008), but each of its eleven original members were directly appointed by Jimbo Wales in January 2004. There weren't any elections at that time. Kurtis (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel

edit

Happy

edit

Thank you Daniel for taking the step. You've always been a great administrator, judge, and one who would penetrate the past to find an evidence. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An old hand and a breath of fresh air

edit

Out of the twelve names that have popped up among the list of ArbCom candidates this year, Daniel might well have been the most pleasant surprise of them all. Not only because he is a member of the "old guard" from when I first started editing (I registered in '08), but because he brings to the table a set of attributes and experiences that collectively make him, in my opinion, one of the single most qualified individuals that we could possibly have serving us as an arbitrator. These include a tenure of nearly 20 years as an editor and administrator, a previous stint as an ArbCom clerk, extensive experience in both content creation and dispute resolution, a clear and concise communication style, and a demonstrated capacity for both critical and independent thought. I don't remember if I had very many interactions with Daniel (I edited as "Master&Expert" from 2008 until 2012), but from everything that I've seen of him over the years—both then and now—I believe that we would benefit greatly from his election. Kurtis (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both the endorsement and incredibly kind words, Kurtis. I definitely remember you as M&E from back in the day!! Thanks to you for all your contributions to the project over your long tenure. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I'm confident that you'll do a great job. Kurtis (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a "non-admin" candidate?

edit

Technically, ex-admin Daniel would receive enough support to become the first "non-admin" candidate to be elected an arbitrator. Nonetheless, as said in the candidate statement, he plans to become an admin again if he becomes elected. I don't think I should consider him the potential to become the first "non-admin", should I? George Ho (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you, for whatever that's worth! Daniel (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

edit

The self-confessed 'hanging judge', is obviously so confident of being re-elected he doesn't think he needs to provide more than evasive answers to questions, and at the very last minute - the vast majority of voters have already made up their minds before the voting starts and over 50% cast their ballot as soon as the poll opens [11]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero is highly qualified, but for me it's difficult to expect open-minded and impartial decision-making after comments like

  • [12] "I would like to register my profound disappointment that both 7&6 and TPH seem to be unable ..."
  • [13] "Decline this publicity stunt" (rather than assuming a good-faith attempt to follow an unclear process)

etc. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement

edit

Working with Guerillero has shown me his dedication and drive to improve the projects. He has my vote. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair administrator

edit

I know him as a quality administrator and he deserves every support from me. Mikola22 (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron

edit

reform-minded

edit

i am happy to see Leeky here. in my experience she is always very kind and helpful - what may be more pertinent to ArbCom though is her relentless drive for reform of our processes particularly at this year's RfA review. a good quality to have in a candidate! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that. Leeky's excellent work on the 2024 RfA review, probably the most important reform during my time here on Wikipedia, is evidence that she is committed to improving our institutions and processes, even when the challenge seems insurmountable and countless attempts have failed before. Toadspike [Talk] 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delighted to see this candidacy

edit

I am truly excited to see leek be hopefully elected to ArbCom. Leek's energy is exactly what the Committee needs right now. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elli

edit

Excited to see Elli run

edit

I encouraged Elli to run for ArbCom and am very glad she is doing so. I enjoyed reading and thinking about the answer to HJ's question and am looking forward to seeing her thoughtfulness on the Committee. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this Lynxano (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge of Mike Gravel Earns my Vote!

edit

On Elli's user profile I was thrilled to learn that she either created or expanded upon The Gravel Institute because that means she is aware of one of the most legendary, truth-telling, rock-throwing, high-stakes fighters ever in Mike Gravel! I was a state chair and major supporter of Gravel during his 2020 Presidential primary campaign and there is a certain comradery I feel with others who know about or were interested in Mike Gravel for one reason or another. There was a positive spirit that surrounded his campaign that had some magic. I have no idea what Elli's politics are, nor do I need to, for it to be clear that she is open-minded and perhaps seeks the FUN in politics. I also was appreciative of Elli's thoughts on user retention being a two way street. I am too green to know much of the Arbitration Committee elections but I can spot a free-thinker when I see one! One more vote for Elli! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJRSmith (talk • contribs) 02:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz

edit

Great new candidate

edit

Primefac

edit

Fantastic arbitrator

edit

Primefac brings so much dedication and competence to the Committee and I am deeply grateful he is running for reelection. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KrakatoaKatie

edit

Great to see you back!

edit

You were a great arbitrator from what I can recall, and I'm sure you'll do a great job again if elected! — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Candidates/Discussion&oldid=1257048687"