Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates

2020 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 03:30 (UTC), Wednesday, 25 December 2024 (Purge)

Thank you for participating in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

Shortcut

WP:ACE2020/C

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2020 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 2020,

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

(iii) meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public 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 08 November 2020 and until 23:59 UTC on 17 November 2020;

(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 only considered complete 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 information policy:
Because we believe that safeguarding the privacy of the Wikimedia community is an important Wikimedia value, those who have access to nonpublic information need to:
- Be at least 18 years old (except email response team members, who must be at least 16 years old);
- Provide contact and identification 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

Guerillero

Hi all, I am Tom and I am an Admin, ArbCom Clerk, and CheckUser. In my real life, I am a geospatial technologist focusing on low and middle-income countries. After a period of low activity, I returned to full activity earlier this year. In that time I have written some content, pitched in at AE after I saw that more help was needed, and have been an active CU. I am running for ArbCom due to the low number of candidates. I was away for the last few weeks due to some personal issues, but I will be active over the next two years. I know what the job entails from my term on arbcom between 2015 and 2015 and I know how much time it takes.

I would like to do an update of the DS procedures if I am on the committee. After being an AE admin, I have seen first hand the horror that the committee (and partly myself by writing the first version of ECP) has set upon the project. We need to rethink and retool the process to make it easier for more than ~20 admins to enforce our DS.

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 that only has an account for saving purposes.

SMcCandlish

I've been rather active for most of my 15 years here. The pandemic is giving me more available time than usual. Serving the community in this capacity for a term would be a good use of a lot of it.

This solid though unusually small candidate roster (plus the Arbs not yet up for re-election) show me the time is now. This last ArbCom has been the most constructive I've seen in years, and many candidates share key concerns and goals. While competitors for seats, they're people I'd love to work with to improve ArbCom. And ArbCom works best without an Arb shortage.

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. Incivility and PoV-pushing are increasing, editor retention drops, discretionary sanctions has obvious problems. Sometimes-problematic editors should be separated from areas where they're disruptive, but too often just get lengthy blocks. Such issues can be rectified, and I have the time, patience, and experience to help.

I've long been involved in Wikipedia policy, RfCs, and advanced-permissions janitorialism (TemplateEditor, PageMover, etc.), but I work on content and am here as an encyclopedia editor, not an admin. Adminship often leads to permanent drift away from a content focus, so I decline RfA nomination offers. I've been concerned that most Arbs have been admins; that doesn't fully represent the community.

I'm not afraid to plainly address the facts, policies, and principles at issue, even if it makes some people unhappy. I'm also already steeped in time-consuming, thankless work that cannot possibly please everyone but which produces results the community doesn't just live with but depends on. It's unusually good training for ArbCom, even if different from the more typical admin route.

Boilerplate: I signed the WMF confidentiality agreement years ago, and will do so again if the wording's changed. [Update: It has, so I will need to sign it again.] My user page lists my doppelganger accounts. I had one occasionally used alt ID, disclosed to ArbCom but not listed for privacy reasons (and no longer used).

Scottywong

Hi there, I'm Scottywong, an editor since 2007 and an admin since 2012. These days, I mostly keep myself busy closing contentious AfDs, MfDs, responding to requests for page protection, and occasionally responding to AIV reports. Previously, before a relatively long semi-retirement wikibreak from 2015-2018, I was heavily involved in technical pursuits such as coding bot tasks, maintaining the edit filter, and creating tools on the now-defunct Toolserver. Many of tools and bot tasks that I created have since been ported to other servers like WMFCloud and are now maintained by other users. If you've edited Wikipedia for any significant length of time, you've almost certainly benefited from the bot tasks and used some of the tools that I originally created, and it's some of the work I'm most proud of.

To be honest, I've probably participated in less ArbCom cases than most of the editors who are reading this. For a long time, I avoided it because I saw it as an overly bureaucratic part of WP, where drama-prone editors go to write thousands of lines of complaints about other editors. However, after spending over a decade on WP, maturing a bit, and lurking more at RFAR, I've come to see that ArbCom is a critical arm of the project that plays a significant role in making sure things continue to run smoothly.

In my professional life, I manage a team of roughly 25 engineers, which I believe has given me valuable experience in dispute resolution, problem solving, good communication, and high-level decision-making. I'm known as someone that can quickly cut to the core of an issue and propose a rational solution to resolve it. I'm also known as someone who isn't afraid to speak my mind, even when I know that others may not agree with me.

I live in the US, and after having lived through the latest political campaigns and elections, I have come to believe that Wikipedia is more important than ever as a reliable source of neutral, factual information in a media environment where factual information is becoming increasingly rare. Therefore, I have 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.

I affirm that I meet the WMF's criteria for access to non-public data, and I'm willing to sign the WMF's confidentiality agreement. My only alternate account is Snotbot, a bot account that has been inactive since 2014.

L235

Hi, I'm Kevin. I've been an active editor since 2014, an arbitration clerk since 2015, an administrator since 2018, and a CheckUser and Oversighter since 2019. In real life, I study public policy and computer science at Stanford University.

I'm running for ArbCom because 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. Our encyclopedia is a wonderful place where we work together to build one of the most ambitious, impactful, and inspiring volunteer-driven projects in human history, and how well ArbCom functions can make a big difference in Wikipedia's success.

ArbCom today fills two somewhat distinct roles. The first is its original purpose: to hear and resolve serious conduct disputes in the form of a standard arbitration case. While over the years fewer and fewer cases are brought before ArbCom because they are (satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily) resolved prior to arbitration, this role is still of critical importance because it acts as a safety valve. The effectiveness of this safety valve varies: if editors are afraid that everyone who touches arbitration will be sanctioned, if the rules at arbitration are unclear or overly complicated, if arbitration is simply too unpleasant, disputes will fester because the safety valve has broken. I pledge to bring to this role empathy, thoughtfulness, and care, and to seek to maintain only as much bureaucracy as necessary to function, knowing that anyone at arbitration is there not because they want to be but rather as a last resort.

The second role consists of the responsibilities that fall outside the core dispute resolution function but are structurally filled by ArbCom. In many ways most editors feel ArbCom's influence far more directly here: from dealing with undisclosed paid editing to managing the discretionary sanctions system, ArbCom's actions can have application far beyond the specific parties to a particular dispute before it. Discretionary sanctions in particular can use reform; I'm open-minded about the specifics and am happy to answer questions at length, but there are at least three broad things I hope we can address:

We need to make it easier for non-expert Wikipedians to understand discretionary sanctions.
The patchwork of DS templates is confusing to navigate even for AE admins and ought to be completely revisited.
By design DS has a first-mover advantage, but perhaps it's too strong. Admins shouldn't invoke DS just to make it hard to overturn their actions, especially page restrictions that no one will appeal.

Disclosures: As a functionary 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) or (rarely) L235 on the road (talk · contribs); I also have some non-editing accounts.

Primefac

Hello, for those who do not know me, I am Primefac. I've been an editor since 2012, subsequently being granted the administrative, oversight, and bureaucratic permissions over the years. I'm most heavily involved in TfD, AfC, and copyright violations, though I regularly close RfCs and (less often) move requests.

Every step I've taken on Wikipedia (from a permission perspective) has been in order to do a better job of improving both the encyclopedia and the community, whether it be redacting copyvios, protecting users' personal information, stopping harassment, or resolving contentious discussions. As I said in my bureaucrat nomination, I'm quite a logical person, and do find a measure of satisfaction in weighing the opinions in a discussion in order to come to a fair and reasoned outcome.

So why ArbCom? First, the previously mentioned ability to comb through the noise of a dispute to find the issues and policies that are at the core of the dispute, finding a result that acceptable to a majority of participants. Second, ArbCom has long been an easy target for complaints when things don't go the way people want. Last month I helped close the Anti-harassment RfC put forth by the current committee. It really gave me a sense of what editors on Wikipedia expect to see from ArbCom, including members that will be transparent, fair, and participate in the process more than simply "casting down opinions from on high".

Do I expect that me joining will magically fix every issue people have with ArbCom? Of course not ("always under scrutiny" is one of the outcomes of that RfC). I do, however, plan on working with the Committee and the community as a whole to address as many of those issues as possible. Some things might not be able to be changed, but it's better to try and fail than to do nothing at all. It would also be nice to strengthen (and/or repair, some would argue) enwiki's ties to the WMF and T&S; recent events and discussions between the functionaries and WMF have shown that a lot of the anger and confusion directed at the WMF is likely due to misunderstandings about how we operate; as a member of ArbCom I would have much more of a voice "at the table" so to speak to bridge any knowledge gaps (on either side of the issue).

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

Bradv

Hi everyone, I'm Bradv, and I'm volunteering for a second term on the Arbitration Committee.

I made a statement last year about my intentions at ArbCom, a statement which I have referred to frequently, and which has guided my decisions during my first term. I 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. I have worked with the WMF to encourage and maintain a clear separation of roles. And, perhaps most importantly, I have worked diligently to remain engaged with the community, both as an arbitrator and as an editor.

There are several new challenges before us in the coming year. A new Universal Code of Conduct is being discussed on meta, which has the potential to change the relationship between the editing community and the WMF, particularly in terms of crosswiki enforcement. Undisclosed paid editing continues to be a rising problem, and is taking up an ever-increasing amount of community time. And our complex system of Discretionary Sanctions is nearing the point of needing an overhaul, or at least some tweaking to keep it in line with the ever-changing needs of the community and the editing process.

The past year on the Arbitration Committee has been a real learning experience, and at times even quite stressful, but it has been made easier by a spirit of camaraderie and collaboration of which the whole committee is proud. It has certainly not been easy, it has not always been fun, but it has never been a chore. Even at points where we disagreed, which were plentiful, we never doubted the sincerity of our colleagues nor their commitment to the project. It is my hope that the committee can maintain this attitude going forward, to model it to the community, to encourage and advise those who lose sight of our mission, and to soberly admonish those who seek to undermine it.

I love this project. I'm proud of it, and proud of all the people who work so diligently to maintain its reputation for accuracy and neutrality in a world of disinformation and deceit. I am grateful for the opportunity to have served in this role for the past year, and if I am chosen to continue for a second term I will consider it an honour and a joy. Our work is not done, our encyclopedia is not complete, and the information revolution continues.

Declaration: I am signatory to the necessary agreements for access to non-public data, and have two alternate accounts: BradV, which I use solely to receive miscapitalized pings, and ArbClerkBot, which unfortunately still only has one job.

Maxim

I'm Maxim, and I have been an administrator and bureaucrat for several years, and an arbitrator for the past year. In the past year, I've helped draft two cases—Medicine and RHaworth. Arguably I am more active behind the scenes, particularly on functionary-related matters and unblock appeals. Outside of arbitration activities, I have been doing some work at SPI in the past year, which was an outgrowth from handling unblock appeals (over 90%+ involve checkuser blocks).

I have a couple of reasons for running again. I think I've done a decent job in the past year; some editors whom I hold in high regard have suggested that I keep doing it. Additionally, 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.

As a sitting arbitrator, I am already compliant with the Foundation's policies on access to non-public information. My sock-drawer is declared to arbcom and includes User:Maximr, User:Maxim's JS test account and a few others in my user creation log (I forget passwords to test accounts from time to time). Maxim_(talk) 18:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

I have been a Wikipedia editor for over ten years, with more than 100,000 edits. I have contributed to 82 Featured Articles, 3 featured lists, 128 A class articles, and 310 Good Articles. I have been active as a Military History Project coordinator, being re-elected to a seventh term in September 2019. In this capacity I have assessed articles, closed A class reviews, and occasional written opinion pieces and book reviews for our monthly newsletter, The Bugle. I assist at DYK with reviews and have been involved in the assembly of the prep areas from time to time. I was runner up in the WikiCup in 2013, Military History Project Military Historian of the Year in 2012, and runner-up in 2014 and 2016.

I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian Paralympic Committee. I was instructor in four Wikimedia Australia workshops, and an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012 and Rio de Janeiro in 2016. Since then I have continued expanding the Paralympic articles, particularly relating to wheelchair basketball. I have travelled around Australia, and to Thailand, China, Germany, the United States and Canada covering Paralympic sports. I attended Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013 and Esino Laurio in 2016 on scholarships from the Wikimedia Foundation.

I hope that I can provide a voice for content creators on the Arbitration Committee.

I have never been blocked or banned. Which brings us to the elephant in the room: I was desysopped for cause ten years ago. So I know what it is like to be on the losing end of an ArbCom case. I blocked an editor after taking this as a personal attack, oblivious of the wider implications. In the decade since then I have attempted mend fences, and nearly all the members of ArbCom at the time voted for me at an unsuccessful RfA. So I am not an admin, but I strongly believe that ArbCom would be enhanced by the presence of at least one non-admin.

I confirm that I will comply fully with the criteria for access to non-public data. I have never edited under another account, but in addition to my main account, I have written and maintained two registered bots, the FACBot, which is used by the featured article process, and the MilHistBot for performing various administrative tasks related to the Military History Project. I also created a third bot account, AussieBot, which has never been used.

BDD

Hi all, I'm BDD. I'll hit my 16th wikiversary during the election period, and have been an administrator since 2013. Most of my time these days is spent on XfDs, especially RfD. 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.

As a librarian by day, I hold and practice many of the same values that drive the encyclopedia. I strive to be helpful and fair to all with whom I interact here, and to uphold the principle of neutrality. ArbCom, of course, requires both neutrality at the outset before making sometimes difficult choices, and I believe I am ready to meet that challenge.

Frankly, I was not intending to run for ArbCom until I saw that we're running short on nominees, without much time left. I believe I have experience, maturity, and a cool head, all of which would make me an asset at ArbCom. I hope you'll agree and that I will earn your support. If not, I trust you'll be voting for others better suited to the job, and I salute you for it.

I meet the Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data, and will sign the confidentiality agreement without hesitation if elected. My only alternative account is inactive and has been declared to ArbCom. I assume I made some IP edits in 2004 or earlier before registering my account, but probably just on long since deleted Star Wars cruft. :)

Barkeep49

Introduction

Hi, I'm Barkeep49, and I'm running for ArbCom, after just missing being elected last year, because I believe in Wikipedia. Since joining in 2005, I have believed in our mission to provide high-quality information to the world. For free! I believe in our community, the ways people from different cultures come together, work out differences through discussion, and successfully write informative encyclopedic material.

Work

I'm proud of the work I've done on Wikipedia. Both through content, with more than 20 good articles and 2 featured lists, and the community where, as an administrator, I try to be a thoughtful helpful presence. One accomplishment from this past year was having been the second most frequent nominator of potential administrators (all successful).

Why I’m running and what I’ll do

I'm running because of a commitment to service to the community and I'm drawn to tackling challenging problems. I don't think the issues that come before ArbCom are "fun." I also know that the increased scrutiny and the accompanying decrease in good faith extended to arbs can make editing less enjoyable. Despite these challenges, I will, if elected, be an effective arbitrator and because I...

am committed to the community, trusting it to handle difficult issues, with ArbCom only acting as a last resort
will bring enthusiasm and a fresh set of eyes, complementing the experience of re-elected and sitting Arbs
will do the work, knowing how much work this is required after discussions with current and former arbs
can manage heavy email loads, like the kind experienced by ArbCom. This will also include checking the undeclared paid editing email address.
will, depending on the situation, listen, be willing to speak first, express a unique viewpoint to avoid groupthink, and find consensus
approach what I say and do with thought and care for others

Ideas

I think ArbCom does a good job on the whole, especially since they're handling issues too hard for a competent community to solve on its own. However, I don't think ArbCom is perfect, and I would like to help as a committee member. For instance, Appeals and Amendments can linger. To help here, I would do things like try to provide periodic updates to interested editors in public and behind the scenes to (nicely) ask my colleagues to respond.

Platform

For more, 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 will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data.

I hope I’ve earned your support.

CaptainEek

Howdy hello! I'm CaptainEek, and I am looking to donate my time and energy to help run the difficult task that is ArbCom. I first signed up to edit in 2014, and began editing in earnest in 2018. I've been an admin since earlier this year. I love making content, especially about birds, and have two FA's to my name, as well as a variety of other accolades. As an admin, I deal mainly in block/vandal work and speedy deletions, but also take an avid interest in solving disputes.

Why ArbCom? 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. I am blessed to have much time in the coming year, and wish to dedicate it in service to one of our most difficult tasks.

If elected, I look to bring several reforms to the committee. This is certainly not a task I can accomplish alone, and hope to work with the rest of the committee to make ArbCom more effective.

Increased transparency: I wish to publish more complete and understandable reports of the committee's actions, and the processes behind them.
Less drama: ArbCom has had a quiet year, and I think that speaks to the fact that ArbCom has become too scary.
Streamlined discretionary sanctions: The system has grown too complex from a patchwork of cases, and is hardly usable by admins, let alone regular editors.

I had not intended to run for ArbCom, as I assumed there would be a full slate. But at this late hour there are few nominations, and I believe that my unerringly civil attitude and thoughtful manner would be a boon for ArbCom. I hardly claim that I am the best candidate, and understand I lack the long experience of some of the candidates. However, I hope you will consider my enthusiasm and dedication, as well as my genial nature.

Disclosure: I have one alt account: AdmiralEek, which I use as a clean account to show other folks how to edit without all my scripts and settings. I meet the WMF's criteria for access to non-public data and will absolutely sign the confidentiality agreement.

List of withdrawn candidates

TonyBallioni

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

Provide contact and identification 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 and identification 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]