User:Reaper Eternal/ACE2023

My thoughts on the 2023 arbitration committee election (candidate list).

What do I look for?

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 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?

I personally will only support up to as many people as there are seats available (8 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

Suspension of Beeblebrox

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) has repeatedly failed to "[p]reserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations" by making disclosures on off-wiki forums. These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Conduct of arbitrators, Beeblebrox is suspended from Arbitration Committee membership for a period of six months from this date. During this period, Beeblebrox's CheckUser and Oversight permissions and his access to applicable mailing lists (including the functionaries' mailing list) are revoked. Following this period, Beeblebrox may request reinstatement of his permissions or mailing list access by applying to the Arbitration Committee. Beeblebrox may also regain access via election to the committee.

Support: Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Enterprisey, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, Izno, L235, Primefac, SilkTork, Wugapodes

Oppose:

Abstain: Moneytrees

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Resulting discussion

Ooof. This one's a doozy and came out after I had written my initial guide.

Fundamentally, we don't have all the evidence since some form of private communication was involved. Unfortunately, in the resulting discussion, arbcom members have not been transparent about the alleged violation(s). (In fact, at the time of writing, they haven't alleged anything more than the non-statement I have listed above.) This has allowed Beeblebrox to control the resulting discussion by claiming that he merely made some involved users aware of discussion about them. (For those unaware, User:Lourdes, an admin sock of the banned admin User:Wifione impersonated a real-life singer "Russian Red". Beeblebrox then released a falsified [by Lourdes / Wifione] email allegedly from "Russian Red".) Arbcom countered by saying there were multiple violations going back years.

This, of course, begged the question of why nothing was done then and what data was released then, which I promptly asked. Barkeep49 responded by mentioning that this latest incident caused them to reflect on previous incidents, which is fair. Arbcom refused to answer my question as to what type of data (not content of said data!) was released. Unfortunately, this makes it look like Arbcom has something to hide or they are not confident in their sanction.

Furthermore, a warning was apparently issued to Beeblebrox back in 2021, which nobody has said anything about!

Unfortunately, Arbcom settled on the worst possible sanction: They chose to suspend (not revoke!) Beeblebrox's privileges. Fundamentally, I cannot reconcile this chosen sanction with any potential violations—either Beeblebrox's conduct rose to revocation levels or it did not. This half-measure is the worst of both worlds.

I'm deeply disappointed by the lack of transparency involved from Arbcom.

Candidate summary

A table for easy reference! This table is sorted alphabetically and not in any order of preference. In the past, I would write a couple paragraphs on each candidate. However, I often felt that it translated into flattery or bashing. As such, I will attempt to keep my rationale brief, with the exception of certain candidates where I feel the need to defend my rationale.

Post-election thoughts

With the results of the election posted, I thought I'd add one more comment to this page. Every single candidate had a positive support threshold, with the minimum supporting percentage being 58%. This shows the overall strength of this group of candidates, and, honestly, even though I opposed some of the winners of this election mostly for lack of experience, I can't say I'm upset at all. Everybody here is a reasonable and mature individual even if a bit green. The winners will (I hope) go on to serve effectively, transparently, and honestly on ArbCom. Good luck and godspeed to all of you, and thank you all for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee.

Candidate	Years of experience	Thoughts	Verdict
Aoidh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	Has some dispute resolution experience, and a new face is always good on ArbCom.	Support
Cabayi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	Experienced, and, as far as I can tell, he had no scandals in his past term. See #Suspension of Beeblebrox.	Oppose
Firefly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	While Firefly is an excellent checkuser, the overlap between a good checkuser and a good arbitrator isn't particularly high. Fundamentally, I don't think he has experience in dispute resolution, and his statement seems to miss the point of arbcom—resolving disputes. The checkuser team is more on the anti-abuse side.	Oppose
HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	One of the best and most experienced administrators on the site. 'Nuff said.	Strong support
Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	Maxim has done an excellent job as an arbitrator in the past. I don't really have a whole lot else to say about him.	Strong support
Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)	0	Robert McClenon is not an administrator, but he has more than ten years of experience resolving disputes, and resolving disputes is the most important role of the arbitration committee. I would argue that Robert is possibly the most qualified candidate for dispute resolution, and thus he should be on any voter's list of supported candidates. Furthermore, I have always held the belief that the arbitration committee should not be a "good 'ol boys" club of admins. Having a non-admin on the team goes a long way towards preventing this issue.	Strong support
Sdrqaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	I don't think Sdrqaz has the experience necessary for ArbCom, and nothing in his nomination statement or answers to the questions helps assuage this concern. Sorry.	Oppose
ToBeFree (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	My opinion echos Ealdgyth's.	Oppose
Wugapodes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	Wugapodes has experience and makes an excellent point about the lack of handling ban appeals. See #Suspension of Beeblebrox. Tamzin makes a very valid point too: "I struggle to reconcile my view of Wugapodes as an honest and thoughtful editor with the fact that they, while actively discussing a motion that acknowledged that 2021 warning—issued to Beeblebrox without any disclosure to the community, to someone operating at the highest level of trust, in a year that they successfully ran for reelection—was willing to say with such certainty that, I quote again, 'The committee is generally very transparent regarding the outcomes of private inquiries, especially as they relate to admins and functionaries.'"	Oppose
Z1720 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	Z1720 is an interesting candidate. He has little in the realm of dispute resolution experience like Robert McClenon does, but he is an excellent reviewer at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. Both areas require skill in reviewing articles and communicating with other editors.	Support