User:Kudpung/ACE2022

ACE Voter guide 2022

This is a guide. It is as objective as possible from my perception and does not not provide any indication as to how I will be voting. After the election, I sometimes provide an indication as to how I voted. Any similarities with other users' guides is coincidence. I do not read other guides until after I have closed my own research and made my comments here. I may however modify my comments here after reading the candidates' answers to questions.

In the aftermath of the 2021 election I produced a thorough analysis of it replete with graphs and charts. I assume that such a profile of ACE is common to most of the elections.

I start my voter guide with some thoughts I have about about the process which might help new voters or users reading voter guides for the first time. Attempts at comparison of the two types of election for higher office, RfA and Arbcom, have often been drawn. The basic reasons why there is a much higher turnout for ACE than RfX are:

1. It's a straight vote and not a debate.
2. The voters will never need to account for their votes.
3. It's an easy vote which requires no research if one is not inclined to do any and just go by the familiarity of the names of the candidates.
4. Every user who qualifies to vote is canvassed not only by a mass-message talk page notification which guarantees a quick participation by users who are otherwise not in the slightest bit interested in Wikipedia governance. but also by spammy notices and another newsletter to over 1,000 admins and other editors on the admin newsletter list, who had already received the official notification.

Be careful what you wish for...

Arbcom is generally composed of a few mature, professional individuals, and some users who have little relevant experience either in real life or on Wkipedia.
Effectively, Wikipedia decision-making has been ceded to 'a small group of obsessives whose hobby is Wikipedia governance.' (incidentaly, Robert Fernandez's article in Wikipedia@20 is still the best I have read about it).

One of the main problems of Arbcom is the election system itself. In the 2021 election with so few candidates, all bar one got a qualifying percentage of votes (only 50% support needed to gain a seat), and with thousands of users making drive-by votes, not all those elected in this year's campaign will necessarily be a perfect fit for the role.

Changes: I make no secret of the fact that I have felt for years that Arbcom as a feature of the English Wikipedia has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced by a very different process - but I don't know what. It is a view shared by many, and not necessarily jaded editors. In every ACE many editors campaign for election on a platform of change for the Committee. They have never succeeded.

Voting: Remember that a 'neutral' vote is a wasted vote. It doesn't affect the outcome in any way.

• ACE2022 has 12 candidates for 8 seats. 4 sitting Arbs and one former Arb are seeking re-election.
• ACE2021 had 11 candidates for 8 vacant seats. Some sitting and some former members were seeking re-election. All candidates bar one (who didn't stand much chance anyway) reached a qualifying threshold.
• ACE2020 had 12 candidates for 7 seats. All candidates reached a qualifying threshold.
• ACE2019 had 22 candidates for 11 seats.

The candidates

8 seats are up for grabs. So, in no particular order:

Guerillero

• Editor since: November 2009
• Total edits: 21,701 24,841 (ca. 3,000 more than at this time last year)
• Mainspace: 5,391 (ca. 390 more than at this time last year)
• Drama boards: ANI 247; AN 89
• Is admin: Yes. 2011 (just scraped through at 59/14/6); Is CU and was Oversighter. Is currently an Arbcom clerk. Ran in 2021. Not elected but was one of only three candidates not to get a seat. Scored 62.47%.
• Is Bureaucrat: No
• Former arbitrator: Yes. Elected December 2014 for a 2-year term (in office January 2015 – December 2016)
• Editing pattern: Low and irregular. Almost totally absent since early 2016. Edits picked up slightly in the past 12 months but participation is still low. Hardly active 2016 through 2019
• Most compelling reason for running: 'I am one of the cadre of Arbitration Enforcement admins who have been waiting for the committee's overhaul of discretionary sanctions for the past two years.'
  ACE2020: "...running for ArbCom due to the low number of candidates."

Summary: Likes writing voter guides (2011, 2016, 2018, 2019), and has written a Guide to Arbitration
In 2019 stated: By some bizarre stroke of misfortune, I was elected to the committee a few years ago. Half way through my term, I wrote an essay about my thoughts on the committee. The short version is that the job fucking sucks. The jobs sucks a bit less when everyone on the team is active and pulling their weight. Because of this, I am biased towards people who have a history of working on the project in high stress-low reward positions such as clerking, However, while not a power seeker per se, he is not averse to filing Arbcom cases, even if not involved and not having necessarily carried out sufficient research. His 2022 campaign statement is based on Arbcom reforms but is noticeable by its absence to mention any changes that would make the Committee more equitable when handling cases.

His RfA in 2011 just scraped through with significant opposition, some based on civility issues. His 2020 run for Arbcom failed, but like all other candidates, reached a qualifying threshold. His comments during that campaign highlighted yet again his borderline respect of PA/civility - ironic for a user who will expect to be adjudicating on civility issues and who makes case requests based on civility issues.

Previous experience as an Arbitrator might be valuable but I have concerns that they will be available enough and/or that they might prematurely relinquish their seat. There have been times that the Committee has come under heavy criticism for its remedies; on the basis of their answers to questions, like last year I'm still not wholly convinced that he would look beyond the complainer's claims in order to better understand the issues at stake to avoid an undue punishment or even a wrong conviction.
He's obviously very comitted to the arbitration process and reforming it and he may find the job sucks less in today's slightly more modern line up. On the other hand he might not find the possible incoming candidates as ready to pass judgement on the so called Finding of Facts as he would like - reaffirming once again that in his opinion it's Arbcom's job to take evidence at face value and not check what's behind it.
I can't make my mind up if this user would really be a team player and conscientious and equitable adjudicator.

GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability

Former/other username(s): Creffet

• Registered: November 2018. First Edit: March 2019
• Total edits: 65,374
• Mainspace: 9,843 (16.8%)
• Drama boards: ANI 308; AN 212
• Is admin: Yes. (137/31/3); 2020, 2 years, 6 months ago). significant opposition from respected, experienced admins. CU since October 2021. Is currently an Arbcom clerk and SPI clerk. Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) member.
• Is Bureaucrat: No
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Good but significant drop since January 2021
• Most compelling reason for running: "…every account that gets pulled into an ArbCom case has a real live human behind the keyboard, and I want to make sure everyone who goes through the process is treated as a real live human. Arbitration is a confusing, bureaucratic, and stressful process, and the least we can do is show compassion, understanding, and assume good faith.’’

Summary: True, but isn't that more or less what they all say? It isn't what actually happens. His user page states ...I won't be perfect on civility - which ironically can be what gets users sanctioned and admins desysoped. His answers to my questions were borderline confrontational which might suggest he doesn't want my vote. Not that a vote from me would change much in the grand scheme of things.

Robert McClenon

Former username:

• Registered: July 2005. First Edit: July 2005. No edits from 2006 to 2013
• Total edits: 197,330
• Mainspace: 19,416 (14.4%)
• Drama boards: DRN 5,456; ANI 1,572;; AN 523
• Is admin: No. RfA 1 (36/23/12) 2006 . RfA 2 (66/76/22) 2017
• Is Bureaucrat: No
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Regular since 2015
• Most compelling reason for running: " It is my opinion that ArbCom should accept somewhat more cases, [...] ArbCom should open more cases than it currently does’’

Summary: Two failed RfA , 2006, 2017, and a failed run for Arbcom in 2018 together with low content contributions but a very high frequency of participation at noticeboards and on all Arbcom requests/cases may demonstrate that policing the project is of more interest than building it, particulary having mentioned twice in his candidate statement that he would like to see more Arbcom cases being accepted. I have a feeling that Robert might still be hoping for a career in Wikipedia governance. Robert seems to have a predilection for conduct issues and noticeboards, this and not being an admin may not make him the community's ideal profile for an Arbitrator. OTOH his long and close association with Arbcom cases may have enabled him to have a balanced view of it. Made a reasonable effort to answer my questions and I can't complain. I think his chances of election are nevertheless rather slim because those who are admins will have first bite at the apple.

Moneytrees|Moneytrees

Former username: Money emoji

• Registered: March 2018. First edit March 2018
• Total edits: 27,404
• Mainspace: 10,085 (39.5%)
• Drama boards: ANI 120; AN 182
• Is admin: Yes. (153/66/6) 2020 Close call, ended in a Bureaucrat chat.
• Is Bureaucrat: No
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Stable but relatively low
• Most compelling reason(s) for running: "I had never planned on running for Arbcom, but after a recommendation that I run in 2022 from high up" , and "I’m willing to go against the grain and will do what I think is The Right Thing."

Summary:A fairly recent RfA in which the main causes for the high opposition were low content, temperament, and perceived lack of maturity as well as a divaesque retirement citing "the obnoxious/pretentious/passive-aggressive/arrogant/cringey/annoying/asshole-for-the-hell-of-it personas the mass majority of users on this website". Not a very compelling reason for running. For most voters this candidacy will come too hard on the heels of a knife-edge RfA. "...doing the right thing" can have many interpretations. His ACE2021 Voter Guide listed 7 interesting qualities; if he can hold himself to them he might make a good arbitrator but no one knows what candidates will actually do until they are firmly seated on the committee and taken part in their first major case. Good answers to my questions. Most of the serious voters will probably be looking at candidates with longer tenure, more experience, and who are less emotional.

Tamzin

Former usernames: Francophonie&Androphilie (Nov. 2012 – Jan. 2013) and user:PinkAmpersand (Jan. 2013 – Oct. 2020), Snowforme used in an intention to game autopatroll , and user:SnowflakeAZ, a vandalism only account, used as a 'bored' teenager along with 'the handful I made as an IP'.

• Registered: November 2012
• Total edits: 47,853
• Mainspace: 16,735 (37.4%)
• Drama boards: High. ANI 544; AN 256. Logged admin actions are high for the short period in office: (1,458 blocks) .
• Is admin: Yes. (340/112/16); ended 9:28 am, 2 May 2022, Monday (6 months, 25 days ago) Close call, ended in a Bureaucrat chat. Highest user participation on one RfA ever but 116 oppose and 16 neutral votes. By nature of its extraordinary high participation, this was one of the most controversial RfA on record .
• Is Bureaucrat: No
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Virtually inactive for 7 years 2014 through 2020, only started editing regularly in May 2021
• Most compelling reason for running: None. Most of the candidate statement seems to be in defence of former issues

Summary: This bid for Arbcom comes so close on the heels of her RfA that reading the RfA and the talk page of its 'Crat chat should be compulsory for anyone voting at this ACE. The candidate appears to have a tendency to be dedicated but emotional. and confrontational. A long article she submitted for The Signpost about her RfA was not retained after some heated discussion.

Comments the candidate made on her RfA drew responses like ...but making divisive political statements is bad – RfA is not a place for soapboxing, and Is there a need to be so condescending to the people who are defending your candidacy? Concerns were mostly about her outspoken political statements and neutrality. I supported this RfA and affirmed it but with great caution - one does not lightly ignore the votes of admins of the stature of Dennis Brown and Cullen328 when they choose to oppose. During the 'Crat chat, while concurring that there was consensus to promote, several 'crats felt the need to warn against using her adminship on American politics with one of them stating "Does the community trust Tamzin to be impartial on American Politics"? I think the answer from this RfA is a quite clear "No". The RfA passed but it was far from what one could class as 'successful'.

After her RfA she launched into a frenzy of admin work and that's what she's probably best at - if in her enthusiasm with her extra tools she can learn to exercise more restraint with the blocking button - it only takes one such error (with even less drama) to desysop a veteran admin. I sense that Tamzin might be looking towards a career in Wikipedia governance, but I don't think wanting to do a term on Arbcom is the best way of staying out of trouble as an admin. Her answers to my questions were short and to the point (for once), but somewhat more intuition into what was actually asked might have been helpful.

BoldLuis

Former/other username(sd):

• Registered: March 2018. First edit: March 2018
• Total edits: 5,018
• Mainspace: 3,424 (70%)
• Drama boards:
• Is admin: No
• Is Bureaucrat: No
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Irregular. Hiatus April 2019 through April 2020 and low participation since.
• Most compelling reason for running: "I am a jurist and can help with the task."

Summary: Not a member of any special rights groups. Probably too little experience to be a serious contender for a seat at this time.

Sdrqaz

Former/other username(s): User:Golollop

• Registered: January 2016. First edit January 2016
• Total edits: 24,412
• Mainspace: 14,541 (63.9%)
• Drama boards: ANI 66; AN 39
• Is admin: Yes. (202/5/5); March 2022 (8 months, 2 days ago)
• Is Bureaucrat: No
• Former arbitrator: No
• Editing pattern: Irregular until October 2020. Solid editing since.
• Most compelling reason(s) for running: " there is important work that needs to be done, and I believe I can make a difference." and "I will bring [this] care and readiness to listen to the table.."

Summary: Comes very hard on the heels of their otherwise successful and drama-free RfA, although some conjecture was raised on their RfA about their identity due to the apparent arbitrary choice of photos on their user page. Was made New Page Reviewer in October 2021. Generally an admin 'gnome'. Gets on with the job of sysop, staying out of the trenches and out of the limelight. If the ACE were a popularity contest it might fail but not for lack of trust. On the other hand the apparent quiet, calm demeanour of this candidate might make a winner but they are fairly low on the experience they bring into the room of the kind that is traditionally the hard-nosed approach that Arbitrators usually have towards cases, especially those involving admins. Very good and thoughtful answers to my questions. If elected, they might have a calming effect on the community committee. Voters should be aware that the assumed photo may not accurately represent the user's age or gender. User page content should often be taken with a pinch of salt, and minor levity should not be a reason to oppose, nevertheless, as SpinningSpark said: The candidate complains that others assume she is male, but unhelpfully does not declare her gender on her talk page. If it is important to you that people address you correctly then you need to say how you want to be addressed. Very thoughtful answers to my questions that inspire confidence. Apart from the kerfuffle over their gender (which they are no way obliged to disclose), there is nothing to not like about the candidate. It will be interesting to see how many votes they get.

Former Arbs seeking re-election

• SilkTork, Bureaucrat since 2020. Has been an Arbitrator on two previous occasions (2011, 2018). Mature, sensible, and fair, stands a good chance of being elected again.

Current Arbs seeking re-election

There is sufficient participation in cases and in general to be able to judge their performance without me needing to analyse them here. Users' voter guides from previous years might be helpful.

• Barkeep49 (elected Dec. 2020) Is very fair-minded which sets him apart from some of the more 'governance bent' committee members. Has a good grasp of what Arbcom should be. His answers to my questions were what I expected and are a testament to his work on the Committee. Has a very good chance of re-election
• CaptainEek (elected Dec. 2020) Has a fair chance of re-election
• Primefac (elected Dec. 2020). Bureaucrat since 2019. Has a fair chance of re-election
• L235 (Kevin) (elected Dec. 2020) From all the candidates he gave the best answers to my questions. Has a fair chance of re-election.

Finally, just as a reminder, this guide is as objective as possible from my perception and does not not provide any indication as to how I will be voting.

• Back to ACE2022 Candidates