2023 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 16:22 (UTC), Tuesday, 27 August 2024 (
)
![]() | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2023. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023.
ToBeFree is a very strong looking candidate to me because of their involvement as an ArbCom clerk. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
ToBeFree's dedication, calm competence, and friendly demeanor are indisputable, and I can personally attest to them having worked with him for almost a year in his role as an ArbCom clerk. Those are traits that will serve him very well on ArbCom. It is a real delight to see him throw his hat into the ring, and I hope everyone joins me in supporting him. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
After reading the candidate statement page, I was unsure whether to vote for this candidate, as this is my time eligible for voting in an arbcom election and did not feel like the statement gave me a sufficient understanding. However, after reading the candidate's answers to editor questions (and all the other candidates' questionnaires), I now think ToBeFree is one of the strongest candidates in this election. I encourage all other first-time voters to read the questionnaire pages as well, even if it seems like a lot of time to spend on wikipedia that isn't editing (or just learning about subjects by reading) wikipedia. Bennyfactor (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Because of All of the above GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Sometime ago I had a dispute with ToBeFree in a permission request I made. At the time, I was using the Template:User Status, which notifies other editors if one is online or offline. But to do that the status needs to be changed from online to offline, making an edit. I then religiously proceeded to make minor edits changing my status to online or offline according to my presence or absence from my Wikipedia session. Then ToBeFree directly implied an accusation against me telling me, "I am also puzzled about your recent edits to your user talk page, which seem to have no other actual purpose than inflating your edit count."
ToBeFree for some reason decided that my edits seemed to be unreasonable and dishonest without even caring to inquire before making a conclusion as to why I made those edits. ToBeFree failed to assume good faith, failed to properly inquire about the situation, made a hasty conclusion about my edits, without even realizing that the purpose of the template I was using was to notify others of my online status which needed edits to do so.
To me, Wikipedia is an important part of my life and I try to make quality, detailed, and methodical edits. Therefore, I felt completely humiliated about ToBeFree's premature and painful accusations of dishonesty in my edits. As such, I don't feel comfortable about ToBeFree being an arbitrator. It is what it is. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I haven't voted yet, as I'm still trying to figure out which candidates to support—honestly, the contenders this year are so strong, I've got half a mind to vote for all of them. However, ToBeFree is one that I'm wavering on a little. Not because I don't trust him, but because I'm not sure of his willingness to make difficult decisions, and his ability to communicate his perspectives clearly and effectively. For instance, his answer to Theleekycauldron's question felt like more of a tangent than a straight response. He was asked for a specific example of a time when he made a tough decision as an administrator, and he gave a boilerplate "I try not to act unilaterally" generalization. It wasn't the kind of direct, forthright answer that I was looking for (and while I can't speak for her, I doubt it's what Leeky was looking for either). Then there's his answer to Tamzin's question, in which he doesn't really elaborate or offer much insight into his stance on ArbCom transparency; as before, it was very boilerplate and vague. None of this should be seen as a knock against TBF, who is a very competent and effective administrator—I think he'd do just fine if elected. But I like it when arbitrators are able to expound upon their ideas in ways that really give you insight into their line of thinking. TBF strikes me as being more reticent than I'd prefer. Kurtis (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I do appreciate that you've stated your goals and beliefs up front in your statement, instead of giving out a bland statement and leaving everyone to have to figure out those things later. I mean, you could be lying, but I doubt it. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia would be very lucky to have Firefly on ArbCom. I've had the pleasure of working with Firefly for over two years, first as a clerk and then as a functionary colleague, and I can't tell you enough how wonderful he is. Firefly brings an intense drive to improve and maintain the project, together with a careful analytic mind packaged with more friendliness and charm than I can describe. Working with him is always a great and inspiring experience, and I can't recommend him enough for ArbCom. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I’m travelling today and therefore my answers to questions may be a little delayed - apologies. Courtesy ping @Theleekycauldron @Barkeep49 @Tamzin as they have asked one at the time of writing. firefly ( t · c ) 07:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Firefly said something genuinely nice to me the other day. I'm rather fragile at the moment, parce-que various RL-if-metaphorical punji pits, and what he said brought a tear to my eye. That's what struck me, right then. It was nothing to do with being civil—of course, he was—but damn civility as a BS excuse for saying whatever you like as long as you don't swear. That's not civility; that's hypocrisy. What Firefly demonstrated was compassion. Compassion to a digitally evoked username. That's worth 1000 times civility. And no disrespect, but I imagine it's a quality that no committee has ever overflowed with. ——Serial 21:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm excited to see Aoidh's candidacy and believe he will add a lot to Arbcom. Everything I've seen from him has indicated a mature temperament and reasoned judgement. While he became an admin recently, Aoidh has been editing since the early 2010s, longer than most currently serving Arbs, which has been skewing towards the prominent editors of the later 2010s--early 2020s as of late. Aoidh also has much experience with dispute resolution processes outside of ANI and Arbcom, and has a history of providing third opinions, diffusing talk page arguments, and working on block appeals. This is a good trait for an Arb-- someone who has had significant work within these content related processes involving the smaller names of the community. I think Aoidh has the requisite empathy and devotion to the community and am glad to give him a co-sign. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Interesting candidature, but if there was a "Too soon" available for Arbcomistas, it might apply here. As I see it, unfortunately, Z1720 has been an active editor since August 2020, and then ran a successful candidature for admin a year later. And now a run at a seat. The problem, I think, is that judging whether an editor is fit to be an admin is one set of questions, based primarily on their behavior as an editor. This is a very different situation in that now it is Z1720's activity as an administrator that is examined. There are no black marks at all, by the way!—but this is basically because there are too few actions to assess. Excepting 44 revdels, they've blocked one editor, reblocked three and unblocked seven over the year. And little or no participation in the discussion boards—ANEW, AFD, AIV or AE, for example, where activity isn't always logged but the ability to discuss things while under a microscope and knowing that, whatever their decision, someone's going home empty-handed. Mind you, they make a lot of positive contributions at FAC, and I don't think I've ever disagreed with them on anything substantial, so there is that. ——Serial 00:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
see the modern caseload is maybe 10 cases a year, and it doesn't look like there's all thut much work. There is. More than you think. It literally never ends, there's something else every single day... It's a LOT of email. DYK / FAC are not training schemes for a cauldron where everyone on fucking Reddit wants to know your name. I bet a lot of active arbs would look back on local projects as a fond childhood memory. Basically, someone who doesn't want the confrontation neither needs nor wants to be an arb. All this, by the way, is nonobstante their primary role as a content creator; I've dabbled in article writing myself, and they are no mean achiever. It us clearly their skill, their forte, their passion. As the logs indicate. ——Serial 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure I've wholly changed my mind; I am still concerned by the lack of proof of resilience under pressure, etc., and a bit more experience in the admin role (to reiterate: I simply don't understand why someone who doesn't want to be an admin would want to be on arbcom; but maybe that's just me). However, I'm very impressed by their answer to Q8. It's healthy to see someone willing to accept that 'peace' does not mean an infobox everywhere. Since many admins steer clear of the area, it's actually good to hear that one might get involved and apportion blame to where it is so often ignored. ——Serial 20:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I found Maxim an excellent arb and colleague and want to explain why for other editors who haven't seen that side of his work. In Maxim's nomination statement he mentions his work behind the scenes. Having been a colleague of his for 2 years, I want to attest that this work was real and substantial. Having Maxim on the committee would definitely mean that work will get done that might not otherwise and that other work will happen faster because of his eforts, time, and thoughts. I'm guessing some editors might have concerns about his onwiki contributions this past year but I do not. I know he wouldn't be submitting if he didn't think he could do the work because even towards the end when he was saying he felt burned out, he still did more than his fair share behind the scenes. Additionally, I want to note that Maxim was seen by fellow arbs as a really good sockhunter, with several major incidents really benefitting from the work he did with CU data and behavior. I hope others find this helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Maxim has a long-term track record of solid judgment. He's a fantastic admin, a detailed bureaucrat and was a fair arbitrator during his previous times on the committee. I don't have specific examples to support my statement, but overall from my interactions with and observations of Maxim going back over 15 years, I can say with confidence that he was great on ArbCom before and will be again. So, yes! Acalamari 16:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Maxim gave a long and thoughtful answer to my Q21. I noticed, though, that his answer to Q10 mentions 14 cases in 2010 as the start of a trend, implying that ArbCom has had less work in the most recent decade. I posted my question to ToBeFree as well, along with a reference to Maxim Q10, noting there that a serious reconsideration of the role of ArbCom might be in order. Has it ever been discussed? Specifically, narrowing the responsibilities in the hope that more people will seek election. This would also reduce work load if it actually has grown (contrary to my interpretation of his Q10 answer). Martindo (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Jumping in early to comment on Harry's candidacy. As much as I would miss his prompt hand on the sysop switch if he succeeds, I wish him well in this new endeavour. I cannot think of a better-qualified candidate for ArbCom. He brings a wealth of background and experience that will serve the community, and the committee, very well indeed. For what it is worth, he has my unqualified support. All the best, Harry. Geoff | Who, me? 00:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Considering my question 5 and his reply, no, I don't consider HJ Mitchell to be a good candidate for the post. The inability to see or admit that actual evidence was presented by multiple people that Acalamari had made a mistake (claiming that a vote was invalid because it incorrectly said that a question was unanswered, even though at the time the vote was cast the question was indeed unanswered), and the attitude in the reply of "if it doesn't affect the readers, it's not important", as if things that affect editors (in this case both the single editor whose vote was struck, but also the general unease it creates discouraging people from opposing and voicing their opinion, and the "burocrats are infallible" impression) can't be worthy of serious attention. The attitude displayed in that discussion and the reply to the question here doesn't give me confidence that HJ Mitchell will objectively look at the evidence instead of sticking to whatever opinion they form right at the start of a case request (or ban appeal or other Arb business). Fram (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment on any of the candidates (except I'll say I think we have a very good slate this year, with nobody I'd strongly oppose). But I've changed my mind, because I was very happy to see Harry in the running and I want to voice my support. I've known Harry a good few years now, and I think he's one of the best we have at seeing all sides of things, and arriving at a fair solution with minimum emotion. And he's definitely got better at it as the years have made their mark on him. I don't always agree with him, of course - but then, I wouldn't trust anyone who always agreed with me ;-) Thanks for standing, Harry, and good luck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
While there are plenty of good candidates this year, my two favorites are Maxim and Harry here; in both cases, I was delighted to see that they had applied. I have known Harry for over a decade but where he stands out from all the other candidates is that, through Wikipedia meetups and Wikimania, I've had the chance to actually meet him in person. Very down-to-earth in real life, just as he is online, and in both arenas displays a huge amount of knowledge about the site and its many aspects' in addition to that, he's a very sane and sensible guy, regardless of whether or not one agrees with him. He is a fair judge of any situation and does look at all sides before opining. I don't expect to agree with every Arb ruling he'll make but it's not about having full agreement with him: It's knowing he's made the best, most informed and most fair decision possible, and that's what Harry will do. So, with fairness, good sense and positive temperament, Harry is one of the best candidates for ArbCom this year! Acalamari 17:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I, unfortunately, do not have the time to write a full voter guide as I have in the past (see 2015 and 2017). However, I will express my support of HJ Mitchell here. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Leaning towards oppose for this candidate, unfortunately, mainly based on three concerns:
If anyone wishes to, please let me know your thoughts about these concerns. Fermiboson (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Let's put to bed the hoary old chestnut as to whether RMcC should run: of course he should. Elsewhere, a current committee member has just told me that beyond a certain level of familiarity and competence that all arbs need, a real diversity of experience is quite helpful on the Committee
. There can be no doubt as to this candidate's familiarity since they respond to case requests so frequently that Barkeep49 was forced to make a sardonic mention of their repeated, and perhaps of questionable relevance, attendance, to the extent of parenthesizing which case they're commenting. Wish I could find that diff. Or was it GeneralNotability? My brains. Go McClenon! ——Serial 21:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm torn. On one hand, I want arbs to be current admins as adminship demonstrates a high degree of community trust and often admins have to do dispute resolution/noticeboard stuff that prepare them for arb work later on, but Robert isn't an admin. However, Robert's extensive work at DRN as well as previous experience as an trainee Arb Clerk (although he resigned) certainly does show to some extent that he does know what it takes to be on ArbCom. Either way, I am sure Robert will certainly bring a unique perspective to ArbCom as a non-admin editor if he's elected. #prodraxis connect 01:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Robert! Thanks for running for the 2023 arbitration committee elections. While you are no doubt trusted, I personally think a non-admin will be lost if on the committee. For one, you lack the ability to block users, which is an issue for me personally. I wish you the best of luck, but I think you’d be better off passing an RfA first. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
They won't have access to important logs, deleted revisions, and other evidence—if elected, Robert McClenon would be eligible to receive checkuser and oversight rights, both of which provide access to the ability to view deleted revisions and other private logs: see Special:ListGroupRights#checkuser and Special:ListGroupRights#suppress. (I do agree with the view that prospective arbitrators should have some amount of administrative experience first, though.) Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I will admit to being disappointed that Robert is the only candidate who has not answered all the questions that were asked before today (with some candidates having answered every question at the time voting started). I consider accountability to the community to be an incredibly important aspect of an arbitrator and one I certainly try to live by. Admittedly one of the questions unanswered is mine but the other 5 questions from before today are from other editors so it's not just that Robert chose to skip my question for whatever reason. I'm holding off my vote for now in hopes that I can read a full range of answers but obviously many voters are proceeding ahead. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I echo Barkeep's concerns above about the number of questions answered. Initially, I was also worried about how much experience Robert had in admin related matters, but I realised that I had neglected to actually check with the xtools.wmcloud page and went to the wrong CSD log (in my defense it was 4am), so my question has now been struck (it was unanswered) and concerns in that regard assauged. (With apologies to Robert for not doing my due dilligence). Otherwise, I think their work at DRN makes them particularly suitable in terms of the possible profiles of an non-admin ArbCom candidate, and I also think that an non-admin arb is a great idea. Fermiboson (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Being appointed to ArbCom requires the candidate to "meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data" and be willing to "sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement". I know for certain that holding CU and OS access requires the user "to have passed an 'RfA or RfA-identical process' first". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it stands as a requirement to sign the confidentiality agreement. Does that requirement also apply to ArbCom candidates? Or can they still be appointed to ArbCom? I know the voting system is different for ArbCom appointments vs RFAs, but does running for ArbCom count as an "RFA-like process"? I'm curious to know, and any input would be greatly appreciated. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I've worked with Robert for years on the DRN, and I believe that he is supremely qualified for Arbcom. His lack of Adminship notwithstanding- he understands Wikipedia on an unparalleled level. He has an unbelievable ability to remain neutral in disputes, and handles even the most complex and contentious issues with grace and empathy. He doesn't hesitate to navigate contentious issues and displays common sense and insight. I would hate to see him disqualified because he has found valuable ways to contribute without admin tools. We view becoming an admin as the pinnacle of contribution to WP, and, for the most part, that is true. However- there are a few individuals who have managed to become an integral part of how WP functions without those tools. Robert is one of them and would make an excellent member of Arbcom. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I, unfortunately, do not have the time to write a full voter guide as I have in the past (see 2015 and 2017). However, I will express my support of Robert McClenon here. He would be good as an arbcom member and he has been helpful in issues that editors have brought to arbcom. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I had a dispute with Robert McClenon regarding a sentence in an RfC. I still have no idea why they only saw part of it and not the whole thing. The discussion I had with them didn't clarify the issue. Regardless, instead of clarifying things, McClenon cited the horse is dead to apparently shut down the discussion.[1] Not really what I would want in an arbitrator. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused about your stance on the hypothetical clash between WMF and English Wikipedia's CON. You claim to support en.wiki CON against WMF, yet you say we should support the UCOC? What if our Wikipedia decide to defy UCOC on their CON? Martianmister (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm impressed by the level of detail and attention given by Wugapodes in answering questions from the community. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I hope the other arbs won't mind if I say that Wugapodes is the smartest arb in our flock, but I suspect everyone else on the Committee would agree too. Wugapodes brings so much to the table: a friendly and considerate demeanor, a deeply impressive analytical mind, the courage to always say what he means and never say what he doesn't mean. Even when we disagree — and that happens plenty often! — I can rest easy knowing that Wugapodes has given my ideas fair consideration... and, statistically, he ends up being right (and I wrong). We'd be lucky to have Wugapodes back on the committee for another term, and if he's reelected, I look forward to engaging with him on his ideas for handling appeals. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I, unfortunately, do not have the time to write a full voter guide as I have in the past (see 2015 and 2017). However, I will express my support of Wugapodes here. He would be good as an arbcom member and he has been helpful in issues that editors have brought to arbcom. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search