Wikipedia

User:Moneytrees/ACE2021

< User:Moneytrees


This is not intended to be a straight forward voter guide; please decide on who to vote for based on your own thoughts and what you think of the facts.

These are my notes and thoughts on the candidates and process. I'm an ex-arbcom clerk, I served beginning in January 2020 to September 2021, where I resigned. I have more knowledge of how the inside of the committee works than most. I'm good at remembering things and searching through page histories to find information, and I'm effective at presenting said information. Along with my actions in last year's election and the effect they had, I thought it'd be a good idea to have what I have to say compiled in one place- for those who care. Any comments/questions/whatever, feel free to add to the talk. My thoughts on the committee in 2020/2021 are important to my overall notes, so please don't glaze over them if you're reading this.

What is wanted for candidates:

1. Someone with "institutional knowledge"- they've been around for a while and can remember the old cases and issues.

2. Someone who is good at investigating behind-the-scenes issues, and pursuing those matters. For previous members {{Arbcomblocks}} they've done in the past are cited, but these are intended more as notes rather than saying the Arb had direct involvement with the investigation progress. See User talk:Moneytrees/Archive 22#ACE2021 guide for some Arbs explaining how that process works.

3. Someone who takes unblocks seriously and will look into behavioral issues, not just the socking side.

4. Someone who is in touch with the community, and is actively editing article space. Functionaries who spend all their time on mailing lists and doing behind the scenes work run the risk of being out of touch with the wider editing community. If your last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back a few years, then you're going to have to have some very strong expertise in another area to back up your candidacy.

5. Someone who puts thought into their actions and isn't impulsive in their decision making. If a candidate strikes me as either thinking very little about what they do before they do it or too quick to act off an initial reaction, they will be opposed.

6. Someone who can work with the other Arbs. That doesn't mean agree with them all the time, just at least be able to interact with them in non-hostile ways.

7. Someone who is not afraid to do the right thing. This is subjective to me, can can be taken with a grain of salt.


Thoughts on the committee in 2020

(Who was on the committee for most cases) For reference:

These are not all the important things the 2020 committee did; declined case requests, ARCAs, and some other motions have not been listed. The first half of the year had several heavy cases and difficult on-wiki scenarios, along with COVID causing chaos in real life. On top of this, it was in the wake of the Fram case and 2019, which was one of the most difficult years for the committee ever. Despite this, the all-star 2020 committee was consistent with keeping up on issues and were not afraid to make difficult choices (although there was some hesitation in some of them). I think that they were a very good Arbcom, and that even some of the more controversial choices they made have been vindicated.

Thoughts on the committee in 2021

(Who is on the committee) So far, this year:

  • Two cases where an administrator was desysopped, one was an "open through motion and desysop" deal (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed decision, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46#Motion: Suspended case (3 months))
  • One case where one user was banned, others were topic banned, and discretionary sanctions were applied (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Proposed decision)
  • One case where several were topic banned and discretionary sanctions were applied (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Proposed decision)
  • Two cases open and closed by motion to apply discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Final decision)
  • One dismissed case that was trending towards at least a three-way interaction ban (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Proposed decision). The case was dismissed after the committee was given information that a party (Flyer22) had died. The committee later issued a statement after allegations that Flyer22 was alive and socking became public Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen.
  • Several behind the scenes debates and investigations. These have happened with past committees of course but have become more well known about with this Arbcom. Examples of this can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Motion regarding Tenebrae, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Eostrix Blocked, and the aforementioned alleged Flyer22 socks. I think people having more of an idea about these investigations is a good thing.
  • 11 users {{Arbcomblock}}'d, not counting alt accounts/socks (only one of these were done with a motion, for these cases less attention on the block is good)
  • One "hand to community for input" unban request, happened at the Administrator's noticeboard; it was unanimously declined by the community (Kiko4564's Unban Request)
  • ~17 users unblocked by the committee (trying not to count unblocked alt/sock accounts), some announced by motion and others not (and some appeals may have been carried over from the 2020 committee), one user was noted to have been "unblocked" despite the account they were using not actually being blocked. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Appeals has stats on the matter. I believe that this committee has had serious issues with unblocks:
    • In January, a CU blocked user (The SPI they were caught up in can be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ka12345678/Archive) was unblocked by the committee with no restrictions. In March they were re-CU blocked following disruptive creation and use of several other accounts. This may have been carried over from the 2020 Arbcom, however.
    • In February, a user was "unblocked" even though their account hadn't been blocked- see User talk:Princess of Ara/Archive 1#Successful appeal, where an arb notes the editor behind this account has had an appeal accepted by the Arbitration Committee. This account had not been blocked so I cannot note it in the block log. According to the user's userpage, they had accidentally socked with the past account Kemmiiii, which is what the unblock was for. Following an ANI discussion in June, the user was topic banned from "Erica Nlewedim, broadly construed", and faced allegations of UPE, with others calling for them to be indef blocked.
    • In March, a user was unblocked with a topic ban from directly editing an article that had led to their block (Link). The account was a single purpose one dedicated to promoting the viewpoint that a tv show had plagiarized their work. The account continued to edit disruptively around the article and was community banned in July. An arb who voted to unban commented in the discussion, noting "I voted to unblock because SethRuebens had credibly resolved the sockpuppetry part of block [...] and committed to avoid further sockpuppetry. In retrospect, I should have voted to deny the appeal, but I think it was a closer case than we can see in retrospect. [...] When ArbCom unblocks a user, especially with restrictions, we aren't trying to confer "immunity" of some kind on the user [...] That clearly isn't the message that we sent here, especially if admins are saying they would've blocked had we not earlier unblocked, and I'm sorry about that. I take full responsibility for all the trouble this has caused [...]" which indicates to me that some arbcom members are unaware of the weight the unblocks they do carry and more importantly, that they don't seem to be looking at the behavioral side of blocks, just the CU/socking angle. Given other cases, this seems to be a recurring problem.
    • In March, a user was unblocked with a one account restriction (Link). The user had previously been blocked for competency issues, and then CU blocked; it wasn't clear if the behavioral issues were considered when unblocked. Resulting discussion at the committee's noticeboard can be seen here. In June, a request to topic ban the editor was posted to the Administrators' noticeboard and can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11. There was consensus for a topic ban, but the discussion was archived away before that could happen.
    • In June, there was the unanimously declined Kiko4564 unban request. The user admitted to doxing and harassing others in the appeal ("[...] I have used a number of sock puppets for the purposes of harassing people and vandalising articles [...] I have no further intention to [...] dox people (as I have done previously)), but it was posted anyways. After some opposes and distress expressed from editors who had previously dealt with the user, an arb apologized, saying that evidence of cop impersonation and harassment over IRC had not been seen on behind-the-scenes mailing lists, adding, "The best information we had is that we had an appeal from a sockmaster who seems to have quieted down in the past two years". The blocking administrator responded, noting (among other good points) "I would point out that the most recent block log entry, for which I'm responsible, clearly states Abuse of administrators and WMF staff continues on IRC and there are repeated instances of talk page and e-mail access having to be removed from Kiko4564 because of misuse. There is only so much information one can put in a block log entry, but to claim The best information we had is that we had an appeal from a sockmaster who seems to have quieted down in the past two years gives no confidence at all that any arbitrator actually read through the block log in any great detail, they certainly didn't read the appeal itself - Kiko4564 openly admits to doxing and legal threats [...]. The arb responded, saying "[...] We should have dug deeper into the more troublesome claims made in the appeal. While I suppose a WP:AN thread is one way of shedding light on the matter, in hindsight, it was not the ideal approach in this case.

These are not all the important things the 2021 committee did; declined case requests, ARCAs, and some other motions have not been listed. The first half of the year had a few heavy cases and several difficult off-wiki scenarios that I think the committee handled mostly well. I do think this committee is weaker than last years, but still good overall. There are issues with unblocks being too lenient, and one thing I'm looking for in those running for the committee this year is a commitment to being serious with unblocks. That said I think the committee's behind the scenes investigations have been generally good from what I know of, and this is one of the stronger committees when it comes to issuing arbcomblocks- they've really gotten those down.

Votes edit

Support

1. Worm That Turned- Trustable Arb with experience, strong showing with regards to behind-the-scenes stuff. If he wants another term, he can get it.

2. Wugapodes- good answer to my question about what seemed like an inconsistency in statements. Wugapodes has a lot of experience in dispute resolution and contentious discussions; you can count on them for detailed explanations of their actions. Will be an essential voice on the committee.

3. Donald Albury- An old admin but a new face to the committee. Appears reasonable and considerate, and has the content chops- what's not to like?

4. Cabayi- Good answer to my question about their thoughts on Arbcom's recent unblocks. I believe Cabayi can be trusted with behind-the-scenes issues and unblocks, two things I hold high.

5. Opabinia regalis- Good answer to my question about a controversial case they co-drafted. Has the insight and knowledge from previous terms, and gives thoughtful rationales for their actions. Also, with KrakatoaKatie leaving, Opabinia would be the only woman on the committee if elected.

6. Guerillero- I believe Guerillero has the institutional knowledge, the content chops, and the will to do "the right thing".

7. Beeblebrox- Ultimately, despite some unwise comments, I believe Beeblebrox's on-wiki honesty and frankness are necessary for the committee.

Oppose

1. Banedon- The answer to my question about being subject to a Clerk Action in a previous case was alright. Banedon has caused some discussion with their candidate statement, saying they want to make Arbcom more like a real court. I don't think this is a good idea, and I think that some of Banedon's stipulations like Arbs having to recuse from cases if they've read the background during the case request make no sense and will in fact hurt Arbcom. If elected to the committee, I think Banedon may realize that some of the stuff that he's advocating for is either essentially already in place or will flat out not work. Ultimately, that doesn't completely put me off Banedon's candidacy; what does are the pretty dubious mainspace edits that Usedtobecool highlights here, and that I don't believe Banedon will be able to get along with certain currently serving Arbs, and that interactions with them may become downright hostile.

2. Thryduulf- Thryduulf has it rough. I'll keep it brief; the stuff regarding the Lightbreather case that I mention in my notes below is concerning when it comes to behind-the-scenes issues, and the answers to questions about how he would recuse from the RexxS case unless RexxS asked him not to just doesn't work for me.

Neutral

1. Izno- Izno, it's looking like you're going to be elected. All I will say is: Be Careful.

2. Enterprisey- Enterprisey is very kind and a great editor, but I'm unsure of what to expect if they are elected. I'm not sure of past experience with dispute resolution, and while the candidate statement is decent, I find some of the answers to be a mixed bag- this one, for example, where Enterprisey says "[...] when people get this mad, somebody got something wrong. In my (limited!) experience, when something's really right, it's not a hard sell to convince everyone of it." Not commenting on the RexxS case, in my non- limited experience, something can indeed be the right thing, almost unarguably so, and people will still argue against it. See here, where several users protected an abusive editor who made comments like this and insisted that there was some sort of cross-wiki conspiracy against that editor, despite literally no evidence existing to back that assertion. Sure, that happened on Commons, but indeed Arbcom will have to do something because it is the right thing, and people may not be happy. At some point, you will have to vote on an Arbcomblock, where the evidence is impossible to argue against but cannot be posted on wiki, and users, maybe several of them, will be upset- this has happened within the last year. It's ok to be afraid to do the right thing, but you can't let that fear prevent you from doing it.

Notes on candidates before I vote edit

Unfinished notes on candidates- I'm going to post my votes above once I do vote, and list my rationales behind why. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 18:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Worm That Turned Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Served on the committee January 2013 to December 2014, and then January 2018 to present. Served as a clerk from Jan 2012 to March 2012, where he resigned.

1.  Y Has the "institutional knowledge", and if elected may be one of the only ones left on the committee who currently has this knowledge.

2.  Y On behind-the-scenes matters- appears to have voted to block User:Eostrix as a sock of User:Icewhiz. Has performed 11 individual {{Arbcomblocks}} over the years including Icewhiz in 2019 and User:Davidwr in 2021. Voted to de-CU Bbb23. Made an "appeal to arbcom block" of User:Scalhotrod while off the committee in 2015, which gets him squarely in this position.

3.

4.  YLast 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to March 2020- only four were made to article space in 2021. However, the majority of their edits in 2020 are non-automated ones dedicated to expanding/maintaining articles, which is better than a lot of other members and candidates. Factor in the pandemic, an apparently busy 2021, previous quality edits to mainspace, and what I would consider "strong expertise", I think this can slide.

5. Y I don't always agree with Worm, but he will always provide detailed rationales for what he does and I've never seen him do anything I would consider "impulsive" or "thoughtless".

6. Y currently serving, no issues with working with other arbs I see.

7.

Beeblebrox Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Served on the committee January 2014 to December 2014, and then January 2020 to present.

1. Y Has the "institutional knowledge", and if elected may be one of the only ones left on the committee who currently has this knowledge.

2. Y On behind-the-scenes matters- Voted to de-CU Bbb23. appears to have voted to block User:Eostrix as a sock of User:Icewhiz. Has performed 8 individual {{Arbcomblocks}} over the years including Eostrix in 2021. I found his explanations on and off wiki of in that case helpful, and I get the impression he's one of the better arbs when it comes to this aspect.

3.

4. Y Last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to April 2021. There's some semi-automated stuff in there, but there's plenty of gnoming and maintaining as well.

5. ? Some of Beeblebrox's comments at Wikipediocracy are fine and I'm happy he's made them. Some of them come off as impulsive or pointless (some of which are cited by Levivich here), and other times he's said thing that I've found questionable or lacking in awareness (like, for example, alluding to another editor as "a little shit"- that person can see that, you know?). That said, he's one of the more honest Arbs on wiki and makes his thought process clear, which I very much appreciate.

6.  Y currently serving, no issues with working with other arbs I see.

7.

Banedon Banedon (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Is not an admin. Has not served on Arbcom before.

1.? Banedon has edited since 2006 but I don't see any thing that would indicate he has a deep knowledge of past issues and such.

2. There's no metric to really judge Banedon's behind the scenes skills on.

3.

4.

5. Y I don't agree with much of what Banedon says, but they don't strike me as "impulsive" or "thoughtless" in their decision making.

6. N There are some currently serving Arbs that I just don't see Banedon getting along with at all.

7.

Wugapodes Wugapodes (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Has not served on Arbcom before.

1. Wugapodes is newer user when compared to the other candidates, so isn't likely to posses deep institutional knowledge. That's ok, new blood is always needed for Arbcom.

2.

3.

4. Y last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to June 2020 Could be better, but I think that Wugapodes make up for this with strong showings in dispute resolution and explaining their thought process- Wugapodes can write.

5. Y Even when I do not agree with Wugapodes, they are highly thoughtful in their choices and always provide detailed, well-written rationales.

6. Y I don't see Wugapodes getting into constant arguments with other arbs.

7.

Donald Albury Donald Albury (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Has not served on Arbcom before.

1. Y On institutional knowledge- hasn't served on the committee before, but has been editing since 2005 and had served as a OTRS/VRT member for several years, and been an admin since 2006 (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dalbury) and doesn't appear to have done anything questionable since then, which is real good.

2. Y Long term tenure at OTRS/VRT indicates experience good experience with behind the scenes matters.

3.

4. Y last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to September 2021, which is great. Overall seems to be pretty chill. I have to do more research but things look good so far.

5.

6. Y I don't see Donald Albury getting into constant arguments with other arbs.

7.

Opabinia regalis Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Served on the committee January 2016 to December 2019. Is the only woman running, and if elected will be the only woman on the committee.

1. Y I believe she has the "institutional knowledge" due to her previous terms on the committee, and if elected may be one of the only ones left on the committee who currently has this knowledge.

2. Y On behind-the-scenes matters. Has performed 2 individual {{Arbcomblocks}} over the years. I'm going to assume she knows stuff based off of her previous terms on the committee.

3.

4. Y last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to June 2021, plenty are quality article expansion and maintenance.

5.

6. Y no issues with working with other arbs I saw during their last term.

7.

Cabayi Cabayi (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Has not served on Arbcom before.

1.

2. Y on behind the scenes issues- Experience as a SPI clerk, a VRT agent, and global renamer convince me he knows behind the scenes stuff.

3.

4. last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to June 2020, could be better but I believe surpasses this with his work as an SPI clerk.

5.

6. Y I don't see Cabayi getting into constant arguments with other arbs.

7.

Guerillero Guerillero (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Served on the committee January 2015 to December 2016. Has served as a clerk for a very long time.

1.

2. Y on behind the scenes issues- has performed 2 individual {{Arbcomblocks}}, one of which was a ban by motion. Long term service as a clerk and functionary, and his previous stint on Arbcom lead me to believe he's got this down.

3.

4. Y last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to June 2020, his declared alt In actu has some edits during that time period that push it out of May 2020. Could be better but lots of article expansions and work along with previous work on FAs and GAs lets it pass.

5. The "Ok boomer" comment at AE last year, which I admittedly defended at the time, really didn't help that situation and could've been not made. It seems like that was a one time thing however, I otherwise see short but thoughtful comments.

6.  Y currently serving as a clerk, no issues with working with other arbs and clerks that I saw.

7.

Izno Izno (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Has not served on Arbcom before.

1.

2. Y works as a discord mod, and has helped deal with the nonsense that sometimes crops up there.

3.

4. Y last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to September 2021, and he also has several 100 in between with his declared alt IznoPublic. Lots of template related edits but also gnoming.

5.

6.

7.

Thryduulf Thryduulf (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Served on the committee January 2015 to December 2015, a one year term.

1. Y Has the "institutional knowledge", and if elected may be one of the only ones left on the committee who currently has this knowledge. Demonstrated by this statement at the Jytdog case request.

2. N Has performed 1 individual {{Arbcomblocks}}. The above Jytdog statement is good but the several comments made at the Lightbreather proposed decision talk are a deal breaker, with this comment sticking out in particular as concerning. I get there may be a "just a messenger" thing going on, but it's still a bad look.

3.

4. Y last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to January 2021, which is alright I guess...

5.

6.  Y no issues with working with other arbs I saw during their last term.

7.

Enterprisey Enterprisey (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) Has not served on Arbcom before.

1.

2. Y works as a discord mod, and has helped deal with the nonsense that sometimes crops up there.

3.

4. N Last 500 non-minor edits to article space go back to August 2018, not good enough for me. Enterprisey does have strong technical expertise, so this isn't a deal breaker.

5.

6. Y I don't see Enterprisey getting into constant arguments with other arbs.

7.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moneytrees/ACE2021&oldid=1059223807"