Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Robert McClenon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Robert McClenon

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.


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)[reply]

That was not a comment I made to Robert (but I am considering asking him a question about his statements, so perhaps you were reading my mind). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies, Barkeep49, my memory was as defective as my mind-reading. It was, in fact, GeneralNotability who said something similar, but in mitigation, it perhaps reflects the same high level of regard that I hold you both in that I was confused. I called it a distillation of most cases, or something pretentious. ——Serial 14:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose

  1. i'm voting oppose in the securepoll.--RZuo (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @RZuo and thank you for contributing to the discussion about the ArbCom candidates. I think it would be helpful for the candidates themselves as well as the larger community if you could share a little bit more of your rationale for voting the way you do. Again, there is nothing wrong or incorrect about your comment, it just may be more meaningful and helpful if also backed up by an explanation. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i keep a list of users. this user is on it.
    i disagree with the use of securepolls on wiki projects, so i declare my votes, and i hope other users will do the same. RZuo (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey RZuo, thanks for giving such a clear demonstration of why editors absolutely should vote for this candidate. ——Serial 20:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfA First please

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)[reply]

Personally implementing a block should not be a priority for an arbitrator qua arbitrator. Sennalen (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The committee has a general issue with initiative in relation to blocking and unblocking often. A user who can do neither is not going to be able to help fix that issue much less ameliorate that issue. Izno (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But do we really need every arb to be able to do every job? It seems like the value from diverse points of view would outweigh that when every other committee member has the ability to block/unblock, but not a single other one has the point of view. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the platonic ideal would be yes every arb should be able to do every job. In reality every arb can't do every job now - for instance some know their limitations with CU/OS and never touch either and I'll suggest (perhaps more controversially) not every Arb can really write a motion. So on that level a non-admin being unable to do this work isn't different than what we already see. Note: this is not me telling people what criteria they should use to vote or disagreeing that having fewer people who do X places a disproportionate, and sometimes unfair, burden on the arbs who actually do X. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think it is valuable if every arb could theoretically do every part of the job, even if some choose not to, and that's a comment ignoring having the basic knowledge to know that they should.
You'll note also that I did not say only the word block but also the word unblock, and that was deliberately included. As probably the arbitrator who has issued the most unblocks this year as part of the role, nobody jumps up to do it. (I don't know why. Maybe expectation that someone else will, maybe the usual and true excuse of email exhaustion/confusion, maybe something else.) The same is true of {{ArbComBlock}}s issued, though I'm not often the one to have done that side of the job. If Robert is not an administrator, he can not partake in those crucial activities, meaning work remains To Be Done on specific threads of email, which likely means the committee is not as active as it could be. Completing our responsibilities is important. As someone who dealt very directly with the committee's choice to have an RFC on deletion, I hope that last resonates with you.
And ultimately, some times we need to pinch hit or learn new things on the job. Arbitrators take breaks or go longterm inactive so someone needs to pick up the slack (one reason I ended up appeals focused besides being drawn to it is because Maxim took a break from coordinating them). While I don't think the committee would keel over if just Robert were on it as a non-administrator (at least in technical regards - I make no comment about the social, you can read ACE guides for that), imagine what could not be done directly by a committee with a few Roberts and a few inactive administrator-tool-holding arbitrators. It would sound lame to me as an appellant receiving an email that says "no-one active can unblock you so you'll have to be patient until someone is around".
Cabayi is perhaps someone who could speak to being a one-of on the committee (he is a renamer) who I have had to lean on as another arbitrator in that role, but he is running and I know there is soft norm of candidates steering clear of other candidates. Multiple appeals accepted have come with "thou shalt rename" according to WP:User names, and if he were not around, I would have personally and on-behalf of the committee felt in some bind to accept the appeal expeditiously (once we had come to the decision to accept, which I suspect it is no secret that our final response times are if-not-abysmal not exactly speedy, which simply adds to the clock).
To be clear, these are in the abstract and are not a statement on Robert specifically. But as he is the archetype of non-admin running in ACE, much of this commentary comes with the specific. (We would not be having this discussion, or perhaps not on this page, otherwise.) Izno (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trusting that noboday minds I would appreciate an opportunity to comment on this issue. Not the candidate in question whom honestly seems to havea wealth of relevant experience in dispute resolution, which is also called arbitration in some areas. Having served two terms as the Chair of the OC which in some ways is a similar working committee as ArbCom, just global not local, I do not see having access to the admin tools as being that crucial an indicator for the person to do the work.
Over a number of years now I have watched Ombuds come and go, of varying degrees of ability. The best ones have been people with legal experience (ie lawyers) and people with significant experience as CheckUsers, ArbCom former members, those working with other investigation activities, eg VRTS. Their success with the admin tools has had little to do with their ability to do the work. What I want to see in the Ombuds is an ability to investigate, know policy, arbitrate issues, come up with and write good resolutions that can pass. The willingness to be involved in the work, ie comment on the cases, bring fresh ideas. Being able to block is not in that list. Obviously for most of these people to get on OC they are admins somewhere, and usually much more. But the point is its not the admin tools that really gave them the tools for this type of work.
I agree with the point that it may be desirable to be an admin first, but I think you may be missing good opportunities to get skillful members if you make it a condition. It is a committee for a reason, they share the load. Someone else can be asked to block. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, I do get what you're saying. I guess I just feel there are two ideals here, and they're unfortunately kind of at odds with one another.
We need diverse perspectives. Because much of the committee’s work must be done privately, we very much need for people not on the committee to know their perspective is at least represented there.
IMO, when we don't have a lot of diversity on the committee, we should try to increase it even if the candidate isn’t perfect. Is Robert the perfect non-admin candidate? Probably not, if for no other reason than that he wants to be an admin. But he’s still in a position to increase diversity and to offer other non-admins the knowledge that there’s a single voice on the committee who is in their shoes.
I’m inclined to consider the candidacy of anyone who provides some measure of currently completely-missing diverse perspective as long as they:
  1. aren’t a crank
  2. aren’t likely to shirk the work
…even if the candidacy in other ways isn’t ideal, even when the candidate can't do every job. That’s how important diversity of perspective is on a committee that does this kind of work, to me. Valereee (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with what Illusion Flame said above, but in part. I don't think lacking the administrator tools would be a major bar from being able to perform the duties of an ArbCom member. It just would be very inconvenient. They won't have access to important logs, deleted revisions, and other evidence compared to other ArbCom "colleagues". However, for me to support a candidacy for ArbCom, I really have to be able to see their tenure and experience as an administrator; how they handle hard situations, how they make decisions, how they treat other users under the role (especially new ones). It's an important aspect of one's experience on Wikipedia, especially if you wish to apply for a seat on a committee where all previous appointed members have been administrators for some time. This is what's giving me pause overall. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 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)[reply]

Disappointed in the number of questions answered when voting started

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)[reply]

  • @Robert McClenon: - could you explain? Thanks. starship.paint (RUN) 07:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Robert has been busy working at his answers today, which is much appreciated. I got answers to the couple of questions I was waiting for and have now been able to vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Barkeep49, User:Starship.paint, User:Fermiboson - I can say and will say that I was focused on real life stuff, such as travel for a public holiday, and other even more boring real life stuff, and I am also aware that that isn't considered an excuse. I will comment, and this is again not an excuse, that I think that the period between the opening of questions and the start of voting was too short, and will note that as a comment for next year. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Fermiboson (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly understand and at first I guessed that but then when lots of subsequent questions got answered started to doubt it. If I had known this before I wouldn't have said anything. Thanks again for the explanation. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic that McClenon's in/ability to answer a couple of questions has been rather overshadowed recently by slightly more serious committee actions. Or should be... ——Serial 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts

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)[reply]

Eligibility?

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)[reply]

@Oshwah ArbCom elections are an RFA-like process and would allow Robert (who is already on the noticeboard saying he's signed the ANPDP) to get CU and OS. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 - Thank you for clarifying. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unqualified Support

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)[reply]

Support

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)[reply]

Oppose

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)[reply]

How astonishingly petty and childish. It's hard to imagine clearer proof of the correctness of the his decision to disengage. How many different fora are you planning on taking this temper-tantrum to? 68.237.27.46 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did a (potentially) bad argument allow you to make personal attacks? Fermiboson (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMF and ArbCom

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)[reply]

  1. ^ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grammar#Sentence fragment?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Candidates/Robert_McClenon&oldid=1205588079"