Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates

2024 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 01:26 (UTC), Sunday, 29 December 2024 (Purge)

Thank you for participating in the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

Shortcut

WP:ACE2024/C

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections appear below.

Eligibility criteria

An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate if they:

have a registered account which has made at least 500 mainspace edits before 1 November 2024,
are not prevented from submitting their candidacy by a block or ban,
meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data,
are willing to sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement,^[a] and
have disclosed any previous or alternate accounts in their election statement (legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee before the close of nominations do not need to be publicly disclosed).

Caution about scrutiny

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.

Simultaneous membership on other committees

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.

Candidate statements

Statements must:

be submitted after 00:00 UTC on 03 November 2024 and until 23:59 UTC on 12 November 2024,
not exceed a limit of 400 words^[b] (although candidates are free to link to a longer statement if they wish),
confirm that the candidate will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data,
include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee, and
be created using the inputbox below, by appending your username to the existing text, clicking the button, and following the instructions.

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

Click to shuffle candidates

Theleekycauldron

Hi howdy! I'm theleekycauldron – I've been an editor since 2020, and an admin since 2023. I help out at DYK and AE, I close discussions, I write content, I do technical work, and lately, I've been trying to make RfA not suck.

I have two big reasons for jumping in. First, I care deeply about community norms on the project, especially civility and its sister policies. I've been facilitating a major ongoing discussion about the RfA process this year because I've seen so many people get hurt and demoralized because they wanted to volunteer to do more work for the project. The community has taken the opportunity and made some major changes this year, including the creation of WP:AELECT, WP:MONITOR, and WP:RECALL. Civility is also the reason I've been helping at AE – it's the best tool the community has to decrease the temperature and toxicity in contentious topics. I think ArbCom could be doing a lot to help AE admins enforce community norms, particularly by helping resolve higher-level and more complex interactions that aren't well-suited for AE, and that would definitely be a big focus for me as an arbitrator.

Second, ArbCom needs active, experienced admins with the time and ability to do the work. The committee is losing a lot of senior members this year. Two outgoing arbs have told me they're worried about whether the committee will attract enough qualified candidates to fill the breach this cycle, and as of this writing, it hasn't yet. ArbCom is an environment where there's a lot of work to be done and a lot of it isn't optional, and that's something I think I'm pretty well-suited for; I'm industrious and a quick learner, and I have the time and energy to be an asset for the Committee. Over the course of my work at DYK, I've processed thousands of nominations and built hundreds of sets, often under a time crunch.

Like I said on my userpage, I'm starting law school in fall 2025. That's not prohibitive – Wikipedia is usually a nice distraction from school for me – but I don't plan to fill a seat on the Committee if I'm not active in it. If I have to put other priorities first, I'll make sure my seat is open for ACE2025.

I'm willing to sign the ANPDP and am over 18. I've disclosed my alternate accounts to ArbCom, and my public disclosures are available here. Thank you for your consideration :)

Simonm223

I meet the criteria required to become an arbitrator and I am good at maintaining confidentiality. In addition to these bare minima I have a personal interest in the arbitration process and in how it can make Wikipedia a better place for everyone. It seems like there are fewer people volunteering than are needed. I am happy to put my hat in the circle under those circumstances. Should more experienced candidates arise I will also bow out graciously.

Now with that being said:

I am an on-and-off again editor of Wikipedia and have been for sixteen years.
I have created a small number of pages, mostly with regard to geography of central China, but I mostly prefer to edit.
I have made more than 13,000 edits
I have never had any kind of block, ban or use restriction
I have prior experience participating in the arbitration process

KrakatoaKatie

Hello all – I'm Katie, and I'm offering to serve again on the Arbitration Committee. I have been an editor since 2006, an administrator since 2007, a CheckUser and Oversighter since 2016, and I served two terms on the committee, from 2018 through 2021. During my terms I did a lot of behind the scenes stuff like functionary activity audits and onboarding/exit tasks, I coordinated CU/OS elections, and I did draft cases as well.

Like WTT, I've had a drop-off in activity since my term ended. First, I lost both my parents in 2021, nine days apart, and I needed to continue to process those losses (still not done, never will be); then we built a new home and moved (and I'm never ever doing that again); and finally, my vision deteriorated, to the point where I could not read well (or knit – I didn't pick up knitting needles for over a year). I've had two eye surgeries and will probably have to have one more, but I can see now to read, and I'm easing my way back into online work. I have the time to devote to committee work and I know what to expect of the workload.

Those of us who have served on the committee have records to run on, so I won't rehash all of that here except to say that I continue to believe that women are underrepresented in the group (and in the editing community, tbh) . The issues we face going forward, to me, are what we should consider as a community in this election, though I'll absolutely try to answer any questions about my previous work.

I think the next years will be challenging for this project and for free information in general. I have a long record of supporting free knowledge and I'm firmly committed to our ideals and goals. For brevity's sake, I'll stop there and invite your questions and comments.

I have one doppelgänger, Krakatoa Katie. I have signed the ANPDP, and I have never and will never edit for pay.

Liz

Introduction: I originally edited Wikipedia with the account User:Nwjerseyliz in 2007 but I mainly edited for years with IP accounts. In 2013, I discovered that the username "Liz" was available and have been Liz ever since. I originally worked a lot in the category namespace and on noticeboards but since becoming an administrator in 2015, I've spent my time on administrative tasks, specifically, taking care of stale drafts (CSD G13s), PROD'd articles and closing AFD discussions.

Philosophy: "Your 'if' is the only peacemaker; much virtue in 'if.'" As You Like It, Act 5, scene 4

I think this quote sums up much of my administrator philosophy. Unless there is blatant vandalism going on or content that violates BLP or copyright guidelines, I'm a believer in being open-minded and hearing all sides before coming to a conclusion. This carefulness can cause frustration from other editors who want quick, decisive action to be taken. But instead of slamming down the ban hammer, I like to understand what the situation is. Also, I have a lot of experience closing AFD discussions and determining the consensus from the participants' arguments. I think being thoughtful and deliberate will guide my process in handling arbitration cases if I am elected.

Goals: I served as an arbitration clerk for 2 years and much of my approach towards serving as an Arbitrator is colored by that experience. I prize transparency even though I realize that this is limited due to the private nature of the information that gets sent to the committee. Beyond transparency, my primary goal is to ensure that every legitimate inquiry of the committee gets acknowledged. As a clerk, I heard complaints from editors writing to the committee who didn't know if their message was received. I'd like to make certain that inquiries are responded to, even if a decision can not be rendered at that time.

Conclusion: I know enough about the committee to know that no one editor can come in and change the way it operates. And, in many ways, the committee is functional. But I think, given my experience and temperament, I will be a different kind of arbitrator than typically gets elected and I think the committee could also use the presence of more women.

Disclosure:I have never edited for pay and I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data.

CaptainEek

Howdy hello folks! It's been an honor to serve the community for the last four years at the helm of the SS ArbCom. I humbly put my name in the captain's hat to serve you for a third term. With my sea legs under me from two terms, I come to you as an seasoned Arb with considerable experience and expertise in our processes. I am lucky to have recently entered a very stable period in my life, so I have significant time to dedicate to ArbCom.

Much of ArbCom's work happens behind the scenes. I believe in fairness, sensitivity, and minimizing bureaucracy when it comes to the Committee's private workload. During my last term, the Committee finally moved away from hearing CheckUser appeals, which has freed us to focus on our still considerable task list.

The minority of ArbCom's work is in cases, but they are certainly the Committee's most dramatic element. Cases should be as short as possible, and as drama free as possible. Cases should also be open to unusual and creative solutions. We must understand that the editors who come before us are people too. I strive to avoid simply voting along group lines.

I believe in transparency, and advocating for the Community. I routinely attend ArbCom's monthly meetings with WMF staff, each time being a voice for the Community's interests. I will vigorously push for the Community at every turn. Wikipedia is sailing into a turbulent future, and ArbCom must often deal with our hardest questions. I am committed to advancing the Community's interests in a changing world, as I did in an interview with the New York Times about AI last year.

When I am not Arbing, I love writing about birds and history. I have two FA's to my name, as well as a variety of other accolades, including my favorite GA—the Gallic Wars.

Ultimately, I am running because I deeply believe in Wikipedia's mission to present the sum of all human knowledge. I think the best way to achieve that is to have a harmonious and welcoming community. Without our editors, we are nothing. We must focus on not only retaining, but also recruiting editors, and the decisions that ArbCom makes have an outsized impact on that. I am honored to have been on the Committee. I hope that you will again empower me to serve as your representative. Smooth sailing.

Disclosure: I have one alt account: AdmiralEek. I meet the WMF's criteria for access to non-public data and have already signed the various NDA's.

Elli

Hello everyone, I'm Elli(e). I've been an active editor since 2021, a member of the volunteer response team, and an administrator for a few months.

After talking to a few current and former arbitrators at WikiConference North America both last year and this year, I've become interested in serving on ArbCom. I like resolving disputes, and believe I can bring a fair and compassionate approach towards cases. I care a lot about both civility and editor retention, and do what I can to help people stick around. This goes both ways: we can't have toxic people driving others off the site, but we should also allow people to demonstrate improvement (much of my work recently has been with unblock requests). ArbCom has a primary role in dealing with complex and long-running disputes that the community struggles with, and I'd like to help out with that.

I'd also like to help out with the generally large workload that ArbCom deals with. I have a decent amount of free time, and knowing myself, would be unlikely to lose motivation for the type of work that ArbCom handles. Given the relatively low enthusiasm for this year's elections, I feel like I could be quite useful to the community in this role. While I'm less experienced than some other candidates with the specifics of what ArbCom deals with (I've never been a participant in a case, for example), I'm a fast learner and believe that having a bit of an outsider's perspective could be helpful for making the committee's work more accessible.

I'm over 18, my alternative accounts are disclosed on my userpage (pl), and I will sign the ANPDP.

Primefac

Hello, for those who do not know me, I am Primefac. I have been an editor since 2012, subsequently being granted the administrative, oversight, and bureaucratic permissions over the years, before being elected to ArbCom in 2020. In addition to Arbitration work I am most heavily involved in TfD, AfC, history mergers, and copyright violations.

I apologise for the 11th-hour candidate statement. To be honest, I was not planning on running this year; my real-life schedule next year is likely to take away much of my day-to-day editing, and I thought that this would make it too difficult to continue on ArbCom for another term. However, after reading something that CaptainEek mentioned a few days ago, I realised that I will still have time to dedicate to ArbCom, even if my daily editing rate decreases somewhat; regardless of how often I am able to edit Wikipedia I will still have time to read discussions and come to a final decision based on the policies and guidelines in which we all must operate. With the exception of an unusually stressful January this year (and the odd week-long holiday), I have been active for my entire ArbCom career and do not expect that to change if re-elected regardless of life circumstance.

I suppose I do not have anything "new" to campaign on, as I figure my past work speaks for itself and I want to continue doing more of the same: being a voice of reason and sifting through mountains of evidence when a situation is simply too massive or complex for the community to handle by itself. This year has also brought up some interesting procedural questions that I would like to continue looking at, hopefully to streamline the case request process and possibly reduce some of the tensions and confusion that occur during them. The safety of editors is still a major goal of mine, and I hope to continue working with the WMF to better increase the security and well-being of our editor base, in particular our newer and younger editors. In other words, there is always more work to be done, and I would like continue being one of the people doing it.

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

Guerillero

Hi all, I am Tom and I would like to serve on the Arbitration Committee for a third term. Over the last 2 years I have tried to be a workhorse on the committee rather than a showhorse. On ArbCom it is easy to talk about doing the work, but few people actually do it. One of the main ways this has come out is by being a regular drafting arbitrator for cases. My fingerprints can be found on the final decisions for Historical elections, Venezuelan politics, Industrial agriculture, AlisonW, Armenia-Azerbaijan 3, and the Israel-Palestine email canvasing.

Another big "win" over the past 2 years is returning the regular drip of CU/OS block appeals back to the community. Requiring blocked users exhaust their appeals through {{unblock}} or UTRS before ArbCom hears appeals frees up time for the committee to work on issues only the committee can.

When I am not doing arb work, you can find me working on content. I have racked up 1 FP, 3 FAs, 6 FLs, 11 GAs, and 43 DYKs. Most recently, I got Marriage License across the Featured Article finish line while a sitting arb.

I would be honored to have your vote in this year's election.

The fine print

I am over 18 years of age
I have access to CU/OS and already have identified to the WMF
The only other account worth talking about is In actu (talk · contribs) any other account was for a single test or a failed idea.

Daniel

Hi, I'm Daniel, an editor from Australia. I have been on Wikipedia since 2006, and an administrator* since 2008.

I was very active for the first five or so years of being on Wikipedia, and during that time (in addition to being an administrator) assisted in various dispute resolution functions, including as an ArbCom clerk and with the now-defunct Mediation Committee. I was also very involved in content work during this time, and a large part of my time was taken up as an VRT administrator. My life changed in the 2010's and I had a very low level of activity during this decade. I prioritised success in my work and sporting commitments during my 20's, and performed what can charitably be described as a minimal level of Wikipedia activity during this period.

Since 2021, I have returned to higher levels of activity, as I have stepped away from my sporting commitments and work is now at a point that I have spare capacity—both time-wise, but also emotionally and mentally—to invest. This return to being truly active in 2021 came with the inherent danger of being a 'legacy administrator', with all the negative connotations that come with that. In the four years since, I believe I have shown that I am able to still perform this role in tune with the community's expectations, and to a high standard. My recent involvement with the project as an administrator has largely been functional and somewhat behind-the-scenes — especially with article deletion processes (including Deletion Review), as well as community discussions at the relevant noticeboards.

While I do not edit every single day, I tend to read Wikipedia every day. My work commitments sees me travel frequently, which sometimes precludes sitting down and having a proper editing session. However, I generally always find time to read what's going on in the areas I'm involved with. As current arbitrator CaptainEek wrote in a discussion about serving on the Committee, I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing. This suits me down to the ground given my current off-wiki commitments.

Thanks in advance for your consideration of my candidacy. I am currently travelling in North America so my apologies in advance if responses to questions are slightly delayed; I will get to them as soon as I can. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I can confirm I have never edited for pay. I confirm I am over the age of 18 (with the dodgy knees to prove that I am in my mid-30's), will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, and have no undeclared alternate accounts (User:DanielBot has been inactive since 2009).

* I am currently not an administrator temporarily, having voluntarily handed in my tools for a short period last month. I did this because I needed a brief break from being an admin, but also as disclosed here my availability until mid-way through January is awful. If successful at this election, I will re-request the tools at WP:BN in late December instead of mid-January as originally planned, so as to facilitate the additional userrights that come with AC membership.

ScottishFinnishRadish

Hello everyone. I'm ScottishFinnishRadish, and I've decided that with the committee sorely hurting for active members and the dearth of candidates that I'll throw my hat into the ring for your consideration (after having cleared it with my wife).

I have been editing for a bit under four years and have been an administrator for over two, and have been very active in that role. That comes to one of the main reasons that I think I can be a benefit to the committee, I have the time. I've spent over a year working on Diet Arbcom, as well as patrolling contentious topics. I've put in hundreds of hours reviewing evidence, monitoring discussions, and taking action when necessary. That is in addition to my normal UAA/AIV/ANI patrolling.

The other reason I believe I would help the committee is that I feel I have a strong record of acting to uphold our policies, expectations, and consensus. I have closed many large, complex discussions and have publicly deliberated and explained my reasoning at WP:AE reports and numerous appeals and reviews of my actions. I've also made around 15,000 administrator actions and hundreds of logged CTOP enforcement actions, so my judgement, actions, and activity are open for review.

On the occasions where my judgement hasn't lined up with consensus or expectations I’ve been open to criticism, and have adjusted my approach accordingly. I’m open to compromise, and I read, analyze, and take on the input of others in discussions. We all make mistakes, and I don't shy away from apologizing when I've made one. I also try to keep discussions moving in venues like AE, where things can easily stagnate. I don't believe editors should be left hanging on the hook any longer than necessary, and I try to avoid or remedy that whenever possible.

Without a large committee of active members with varying expertise and points of view the Arbitration process breaks down. I'm offering my time and effort to help keep that process working as it should. I believe that my judgement, my commitment to keeping things moving, and my activity level will make me a constructive member of the committee.

I have signed the WP:ANPDP and have never been paid to edit or edited on behalf of another. I have no other accounts.

Worm That Turned

Hi folks. I'm here to stand for the Arbitration Committee. I have spent something like 2/3s of the past 12 years on the committee, and strive to be a voice of reason on there, please do look at my history to find out more.

I have achieved a lot as an Arb, and am proud of my contributions, though I accept there have been places where the circle could not be squared and I came down on the wrong side, I hope I have learned from these mistakes. You can also see my article contributions, FAs and GAs, also linked from my user page.

So, why this run? I have concerns about the committee since I have left a year ago. The main one is around morale, which I'm judging by the significant inactivity and retirements. I believe that this is an area I excel, keeping the committee going. Next, internal communication and concerns about other arbs - if I see a problem within the committee, I handle it head on. I discuss it openly and I make sure the individual who the community has placed their trust in can course correct.

I will address the obvious concerns. My activity, I have been inactive on Wikipedia since the beginning of the year. This was down to my work outside Wikipedia, where I was leading many small projects simultaneously and the context switch, a skill I've learned from the committee was exhausting - since June, this work has been outsourced, meaning I have some more time available. I haven't taken the plunge into editing again, but I do feel I am ready to do so.

Secondly, I am not currently an administrator and I have committed to running a reconfirmation RfA rather than simply asking for the tools back. I will do this prior to being elected, so you will have two places to judge me.

Finally, I've never been a high volume work load arb, and I don't expect to be one this time either. I will respond promptly though and will not hold up the committee decisions

I have never edited for pay, though I have received swag as part of my volunteering over the past 15 years.

I have also signed the non public data agreement and am not aware of any reason I am ineligible. My sock drawer has not changed in years, User:WormTT, User:Wormbot, User:Worm That Trains and User:Wyrm That Turned

Just Step Sideways

You know what, yeah, I'm doing this. I'm an experienced arb and functionary. Previously known as Beeblebrox. And yes, I was suspended from this committee at the end of my last term. I do not deny any of the findings of the committee regarding what I did: I did, on more than one occasion, leak non-specific material (as in, not direct quotes but rather general information) from the arbcom mailing list on an offsite forum. I believed at the time that I was acting within the discretion granted to me by the community when they elected me (three times) to that position. The committee did not agree, and suspended me, and revoked my functionary status as well. Ultimately the ombuds backed up their decision as regards arbcom emails. Given that, I must concede that there is a demonstrable consensus amongst those that are supposed to know best on these subjects that I should not have done what I did, and I accept that.

What I do not accept is the contention that this was clear beforehand, and the committee has conceded that I was correct in the belief that it had not made that entirely apparent previously.

I therefore make the following promise: Nothing from the arbcom mailing list will ever be reposted by me, ever, without the express permission of the committee. That was my only sin, and easily corrected now that the committee has made it abundantly clear where they believe the line is.

I was an arbitrator for nearly five years altogether, and a functionary for twelve years, and I believe I did a good job at both. I feel that the committee, this past year in particular, has been indecisive and ineffectual. I believe that it needs help, and voices of experience, and I am volunteering to be just that. I believe in both this project and the potential for this committee to provide help to this community by mitigating seemingly intractable disputes. I believe I have a track record of being helpful and decisive in evaluating cases before the committee, and I ask for your support to do so again.

Thank you for your consideration.

I remain a signatory to the WP:ANPDP and have never edited for pay. Again for the record I used to be called Beeblebrox, but you can call me Beebs or JSS these days. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Provide contact 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 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]