User:Reaper Eternal/ACE2020
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
My thoughts on the 2020 arbitration committee election (candidate list).
What do I look for?
[edit]I do not want editors who cause drama. The level of dramatics at ArbCom cases tends towards the absurd, so we do not need an arbitrator fanning the flames. I look for cases of dispute resolution, especially where the disputes were successfully resolved. While I'm no civility cop, I do consider incivility and profanity to be generally unhelpful in the dispute resolution process. While a regular editor or admin can get away with occasionally blowing up and venting, an arbitrator needs to be a shining example of calmness, since arbitrators will have to deal with many angry and upset editors on a regular basis.
I also look for article content creation. Content creation indicates that the aspiring arbitrator understands Wikipedia's policies, and he or she will know what articles mean to the writers. Content creators on ArbCom will have sympathy towards productive editors being baited and less likely, in my opinion, to simply slap symptoms without treating the cause. Furthermore, involvement in the featured article and good article creation process, either as a reviewer or a nominator, will result in occasional disputes over whether something is an improvement. Successful resolution of these minor disputes demonstrates that someone can likely resolve larger disputes that end up before ArbCom.
How many people should I support?
[edit]I personally will only support up to as many people as there are seats available (7 for this election) to maximize the chances of my preferred candidates getting elected. Other people who I would have supported get ruled down to neutral.
Key evidence
[edit]Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23
[edit]The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
- In April, the Arbitration Committee privately warned Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that his use of the CheckUser tool had been contrary to local and global policies prohibiting checking accounts where there is insufficient evidence to suspect abusive sockpuppetry ("fishing"). The committee additionally imposed specific restrictions on Bbb23's use of the CheckUser tool in ambiguous cases otherwise considered to be within the discretion of individual CheckUsers. Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions, continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request. Accordingly, Bbb23's CheckUser access is revoked.
- Support: Joe Roe, Bradv, Beeblebrox, Maxim, David Fuchs, xeno, Worm That Turned, SoWhy, Casliber, Newyorkbrad, DGG
- Oppose:
- Recuse: KrakatoaKatie
- Inactive: GorillaWarfare, Mkdw
For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
In contrast to many examples of motions I have given in past thoughts, I agree with ArbCom on this motion and respect their willingness to make difficult decisions.
Full disclosure: I have complained about Bbb23's inappropriate checkuser use.
Inappropriate signpost article
[edit]This was authored (see history) by the candidate SMcCandlish. He has since retracted and apologized for it, mentioning that it was not intended to insult anybody; rather, it was intended to draw attention to unnecessary demands for specific capitalization or other grammatical constructs by article subjects.
A bigger concern of mine is that no other SignPost editor read it and thought that it shouldn't be published.
Hawkeye7 desysopped
[edit]An arbitration case regarding Civility enforcement has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time.
[...]
For the Arbitration Committee:
Mlpearc (powwow) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
On civility
[edit]Allow me to quote Ealdgyth:
I think Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision was insane. To be utterly frank - I think comparing this decision to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Proposed decision or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision I can not escape the impression that BrownHairedGirl was held to a higher standard of civility than male admins are held to.
That said, some of the difference is due to the current ArbCom being far more willing to hold administrators to account—something that should happen (see Bbb23 above).
Candidate summary
[edit]A table for easy reference! This table is sorted alphabetically and not in any order of preference.
| Candidate | Years of experience | Thoughts | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) |  0
|
Barkeep49 is a fresh admin, though he has been around the block as an editor. I have nothing negative to say about him, and supported him last year. He has WP:CLUE, and I still support. |  Support
|
| BDD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) | 0
|
As with CaptainEek, I don't see much involvement in the dispute resolution side of things—something necessary in an arbitrator. |  Neutral
|
| Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) |  1
|
I voted neutral on Bradv last time, but his work on the committee seems to have been quite good. Supporting this time. | Support
|
| CaptainEek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) | 0
|
CaptainEek is a very green admin, and his generic statement doesn't help. "Less drama: ArbCom has had a quiet year, and I think that speaks to the fact that ArbCom has become too scary." I disagree. I also don't see much involvement in the dispute resolution side of things—something necessary in an arbitrator. | Neutral
|
| Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) | 2
|
I don't recall ever being disappointed by his term on the committee, and SandyGeorgia's comments about how he assists people at ArbCom is another major plus. | Support
|
| Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) (nom) | 0
|
Hawkeye7 has been (correctly) desysopped for cause. However, I think it's time to let bygones be bygones with respect to that mess, so I'll focus on more recent activity.
I want to emphasize that Hawkeye7 is an excellent content editor. I would support him running for admin again, since most admin stuff is just routine maintenance like blocking vandals. However, he's a bit too much of a firebrand for dispute resolution. |
Neutral
|
| L235 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) | 0
|
I'm not seeing any relevant recent experience in either dispute resolution or the FAC or GAN. (See #What do I look for? for more information.) Checkuser is not relevant experience. While his long and valued service as an ArbCom clerk has given him more technical experience than most here, I'd still like to see some involvement in resolving disputes.
|
Support
|
| Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) | 1
|
I would put Maxim alongside Newyorkbrad as one of the best and most nuanced arbitrators ever. He's honest, frank, and always keeps cool. | Strong support
|
| Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) | 0
|
Apparently, all our bureaucrats want to be arbitrators. That said, Primefac is calm in discussions. | Support
|
| Scottywong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) | 0
|
No. |  Strong oppose
|
| SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) (nom) | 0
|
I've seen SMcCandlish around the wiki many times, usually helping out in various content areas. He's a great editor. In contrast to many of my peers, I like having a non-admin on ArbCom to help keep things in perspective and to ensure that no "evul cabals" form. The elephant in the room (the SignPost article) is almost two years old, and SMcCandlish has apologized for it. I've also never seen any evidence that he is, in fact, transphobic, despite some claims that he is. | Support
|
| TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom) | 0
|
TonyBallioni has withdrawn. |