Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Moneytrees

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moneytrees[edit]

Hi, I’m Moneytrees, and I’m volunteering to serve on Arbcom. I became an administrator in 2020 and have been consistently editing since 2018. I deal primarily with preventing and removing copyright violations and plagiarism, and work heavily at Contributor copyright investigations (CCI). I’ve contributed to the completion of over 130 CCIs since I began editing in the area.

In 2020 I coordinated the Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, focused on completing the then largest CCI in Wikipedia’s history with 24,563 articles initially listed. After countless hours of work by me and several other editors, I completed the CCI in early 2021. Work can be brutal and time consuming, but it’s given me several valuable lessons.

I’ve become skilled at looking through article histories and understanding the content and context of edits. I’ve learned how important the prevention vs. punishment distinction is, and that the worst habits need to be addressed early to prevent them from becoming ingrained. I’ve learned the burnout and struggle that is shared between all editors: we need to work to assist and protect those who work away in the trenches, those who ensure important topics are covered with accuracy and quality, and those who combat increasingly complex abuse and spam. Most importantly, despite ups and downs, I have hope for the future of the site.

I think these next few years will be quiet but important ones for the committee. While part of me thinks that the Universal code of Conduct might end up fizzling out into nothing or have no significant impact on the English Wikipedia, I will still strenuously advocate for local governance and dispute resolution.

I am anti–complacency, anti–forgone conclusions, and anti–nonsense. I am pro–accountability, which includes holding myself to a high standard and I think that WP:LEARNINGISIMPORTANT. I do not want others to be afraid of their past mistakes, and I’m willing to change my mind on issues. I will actively engage with community emails and questions. I’m willing to go against the grain and will do what I think is The Right Thing. There is extended information at my track record.

I had never planned on running for Arbcom, but after a recommendation that I run in 2022 from high up, I began to think differently. Ultimately, running now is my choice. I am over 18 years of age and have signed the necessary NDAs for access to non-public information. I have an alt account I’ve never used, an alt account I used but then forgot the password to, and an embarrassing failed joke alt from my early editing days. Hey, I’m not afraid of my mistakes– and neither should you!


Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

Questions from Kont Dracula[edit]

  2. Thank you for volunteering to serve on this committee. It has become a real concern for me that many articles on Wikipedia are being edited to reflect the personal political biases of editors. To put it bluntly, some seem to see the site as a place to engage in outright activism, rather than simply give a concise, objective and accurate background information on subjects. Is this a concern that you have? If not, could you point me in the direction of a candidate who does have these concerns? Good luck with your campaign, politics can be nasty


Questions from Red-tailed hawk[edit]

  2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Red-tailed hawk, here's a whole AN post I started with a violation of INVOLVED as one of its key points; an admin unblocked an editor they were friends with, and the unblock led to problems down the road. My basic explanation of INVOLVED is that you should not take administrative action regarding editors you are friends with/had conflict with, and you should not take action in topic areas/discussions you have extensively edited/had significant participation in. There are exceptions in taking an obvious action that "any administrator would've taken" or interacting with someone in a purely "administrative role"; for example, it is not a violation of INVOLVED if I block someone, I've previously warned for copyright violations. As for the cases cited, I agree with the FOFs at Reversal and reinstatement; TNT was clearly involved with regards to Athaenara and it would've been best to avoid administrative actions related to her. While the admin in the Manning case would be right in most of their actions, it was inadvisable to take them given their involvement in the dispute, and unfortunately likely contributed to it becoming more heated. Climate change is one of those ultra-complex bible-sized cases from before my time; from a short reading and vague familiarity with the area, my understanding is that one of the issues was that there were admins taking action in a topic area they had extensively edited in, which would run afoul of INVOLVED. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Questions from Izno[edit]

  2. As an arb, you will have to deal with messes which often have a lot of reading attached to them. Some of them will be the reasonably ordered messes most cases are. Some of them won't be. One mess I regularly think about is this case request (last revision before archival and first revision). Assuming (for simplicity's sake) that the entire discussion was held onwiki, can you share some thoughts on how you might have responded to the original case request, the changes in aggregate that occurred while the request open, and the ultimate case request? Izno (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno, that was indeed a mess. On the initial case request regarding the COIN thread, I would lean decline as although that was a difficult discussion the community could handle it and eventually did. The way the case request mutated, with Jehochman posting Icewhiz's piece and the scope shifting to the APL topic as a whole... definitely changed things. It is such a mess that it would be tempting to decline it and start over with a new request on the issue, but I know the request phase was draining enough for editors. I think Wugapodes' extended comment here reflects my feelings. Burnout is being induced in and driving away valuable editors, and I'm of the opinion that the remedies only slightly mediate issues. I would lean towards a very focused case, and try and avoid "kicking the can" back to the community again. I think the committee responding to ARCA requests in the area was good though, although it seems to be underused. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Wbm1058[edit]

  2. You were appointed as an Arbcom trainee clerk on 8 January 2020 but – still a trainee 20 months later – resigned on 17 September 2021. Why weren't you promoted to full-clerk status? Why did you resign? Describe your tenure as a clerk trainee and how that influenced your decision to run for a seat as an arbitrator. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wbm1058 I'm glad you asked... in August 2020 I was told all I had left to do in order to become a full clerk was clerk and close a full case. The next full case was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda, which I clerked but it ended up being dismissed by motion without clerk input, so no promotion for me. The next case I got to clerk was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics, but I resigned shortly before it closed. Why did I resign? There were a lot of factors behind why. I would say the most important ones are: 1. I don't like and don't really use IRC, which is something that is all but required to be a clerk. 2. I was severely burned out and frustrated with the site at the time, and was under a significant amount of real life and on-wiki stress, which you can get a real sense of at this AN discussion 3. I never really enjoyed the job– the mailing list was cool and tweaking case requests could be fun, but a lot of work revolved around making very specific edits to templates on obscure pages and reminding parties about obtuse rules, which I found boring. I found the role high-stress and low reward. 4. The role restricts what you're able to say and do greatly, in ways it might not for an Arb. It encourages you to be less active in dispute resolution and to "be quiet". 5. I felt I had made too many mistakes in the role, like this block for example, which while necessary and vindicated by the user being an LTA, wasn't needed at the time, and template/procedure mistakes like initially forgetting to include a motion at general sanctions. I know that was minor but I felt guilty about it. 6. Me and someone involved with Arbcom/the clerk team were on bad terms and did not get along with each other at the time. After my resignation I received high praise from an Arb and was told I should consider running in 2022. I had no desire to become an Arb at any point prior and thought the idea of me becoming one was far-fetched, but after thinking about it for a while I decided to go for it. I would say my experience outside of clerking actually influenced me more since it had more to do with dispute resolution and solving issues instead of paperwork and templates. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from TheresNoTime[edit]

  2. How do you foresee the role of the Arbitration Committee changing with regard to the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct (namely, due to the enforcement guidelines, and the introduction of the global Coordinating Committee)? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Before answering this question, I want to point out User:Barkeep49/UCoC Revision, which contains updates on the ongoing revisions of the Universal Code of Conduct. I'll also note I opposed the UCoC enforcement guidelines. I see it as redundant to the behavioral guidelines that we already have and the m:Terms of use. TheresNoTime, there is the real concern that the U4C (which has been referred to as the "Global Arbcom") would become some sort of high court that would harm the community's governance, and that it could encourage a kind of "forumshopping" or incentivize frivolous/otherwise time-wasting complaints. I will do what I can to prevent this from becoming an issue. I'm still half of the mind that the U4C will end up not really going anywhere or having a real effect on the English Wikipedia. Reading m:Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines, there's still a lot of vague language and ill-defined procedures. How many members will the U4C have? How long are their terms? "The Wikimedia Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members..."- why? Who? Can the U4C block/globally block accounts? In practice, I don't there's anything necessarily wrong with a sort of metawiki body that serves to investigate and make reports on the most entrenched and unsolvable of Wikipedia's problems, but we know the foundation is not always in touch with the community and that these global bodies, such as the Ombuds commission, are ambiguous and obtuse in their actions. I've had my faith in them shaken a bit recently; earlier this year, I blocked someone who had served on the Ombuds commission during 2021 for copyright violations. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is ANI pronounced A-N-I or Annie? Thank you for standing, and good luck. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Annie. Moneytrees Industries®™© will not be taking further questions on this matter. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from InsaneHacker[edit]

  2. When you successfully ran for adminship in 2020, one of the concerns stated by opposers – aside from lack of content creation experience – was an alleged lack of maturity. However, you've since had the bit for almost three years, and a lot can happen in that time. What factors or incidents do you think led to the impression of lack of maturity, and do you think you have addressed those concerns since becoming an administrator?
    InsaneHacker, great question– I wrote at length about my Rfa at this debrief in 2021, which gives a pretty good overview of my experience and feelings. The main concern for "maturity" at my RfA was a then 18-month-old angry retirement notice I had placed on my user page. It was an edgy, frustrated "I quit" message largely informed by real life issues and angst rather than any actual dispute I had been in. There were some additional silly comments I had made and things I had done, and I'm sure the username "Money emoji" didn't really help. I've grown a lot in the years since; I was 17 when I ran, I'm 20 now. There's a notable difference between the Money emoji in the questions at the RfA and the Moneytrees here or here, for examples. My writing has improved and ability to collect and present evidence has improved massively, and I've become a lot more serious over time. I think I've overcome any serious charges of "immaturity" in my largely uncontroversial work since. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I hope you'll indulge me moving from a very concrete question to more of a big picture question. The Arbitration Committee has a special status on the English Wikipedia and indeed in outside coverage of Wikipedia in general, where it is sometimes referred to as the Wikipedia Supreme Court. One might get the impression that every version of Wikipedia has an equivalent body. However, according to meta:Arbitration Committee, only twelve Wikimedia projects, whereof eleven are language versions of Wikipedia, currently have such a body. Presumably all the other language versions get by with an equivalent to WP:AN and its sub-boards.
    Do you think the English Wikipedia could get by without the Arbitration Committee? If not, why do other projects seemingly function fine without having one (size, homo-/heterogeneity, culture, something else)?
    InsaneHacker, I've thought about this before. As arbitration policies have changed and the community has become more willing to sanction users over the years, Arbcom has accepted less and less cases. I think it's a possibility in the distant future that Arbcom may become a more advisory group, with admin cases/larger disputes being handled by the community, private block appeals being handled by functionaries, and special cases being handled by the WMF. In that case I'd think the community would get by fine without having Arbcom as the end-all for disputes. Regardless, I think the reason most projects don't have an Arbcom/have a different type of one is because of size and cultural differences (m:List of Wikipedias has some information to cross-reference with). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question for now. InsaneHacker (💬) 10:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Added second question. InsaneHacker (💬) 23:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gerda Arendt[edit]

  2. Do you believe that we still have infobox wars? If yes, do you have better ideas than the 2013 arb ruling to end them?
    Hello Gerda Arendt. The last major arguments over infoboxes that I remember were in later 2020. Checking talk pages like Talk:Frank Sinatra, Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 6, it seems large conflicts over them have simmered to smaller-scale disagreements, if there are any at all. I wouldn't call them "wars". Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thank you, and I also wouldn't call them wars. Thank you for looking at particular conflicts, beyond the arb cases. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?
    Gerda Arendt, although some comments are snippy and unhelpful I think comparing it to previous discussions and the lack of spillover to ANI/AE/etc. shows that temperatures have decreased in the area. Of course time will tell if there is a significant dispute in the future, but I feel it is unlikely at this time. I have a positive outlook that things will be ok. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BilledMammal[edit]

  2. Would you ever support a principle or finding of fact that is based on the Universal Code of Conduct?
    That's an interesting question BilledMammal, given the overlap between our guidelines and policies and the UCoC I would think it'd be usually pointless to cite it, but there very well could be a situation in the future where referencing it would make sense. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Beyond My Ken[edit]

  2. Given your answer above to Wbm1058 about the stresses which caused you to resign as an ArbCom clerk, why do you think you would be able to deal with the -- presumably much greater -- stresses of being an Arbitrator?
    Beyond My Ken, thank you for asking. One major thing is that the clerk workload is different from the committee workload; you are not required to use IRC for the committee, and the bloodshot-inducing template editing doesn't come with the role. I am much more mature and in a better place than I was during that period of my life. At that time, my real-life workload was extreme and unmanageable (I was being encouraged to sleep as little as possible, if at all), and the amount of time I was spending at CCI and Wikipedia disputes was also unmanageable. My work ethic didn't take into account proper self care, and everything around me was incentivizing ignoring it. "But that won't matter, all this work will pay off"- but it won't if you keep working yourself like that. So I had to take a step back and rid myself of any unnecessary stressors, including my not-so-illustrious career as an Arb clerk. I got out of that workload and I know for certain I will never have to work that much in my life again, and I know how I will manage the workload from the committee and my other responsibilities. I'm fully prepared for the workload and increased scrutiny, and if I didn't think I was I wouldn't run.
  4. Given that you've only been an admin for 2 years and 9 months, do you think you are experienced enough to be an effective Aribtrator?
    Yes, I think close to three years as an admin is a good amount. I've learned and grown a lot over the years, I've been to a lot of incredible places most editors don't go to. I was told a year ago I was ready— I am confident I am ready. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear[edit]

  2. Currently, outgoing arbs retain their CUOS rights indefinitely (subject to the normal). Would you be open to a change of process so that outgoing arbs only retained their CUOS rights until the next CUOS application round, where they would have to request and be granted them in order to retain them?
    Nosebagbear, To be able to properly answer this question, I feel like I'd need decent tenure as a functionary, which I do not have. I'm aware some functionaries and people who edit around SPI think this should be policy; as I currently stand, I guess I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I'm unsure how much of a pressing issue it is. I'm under the impression that most Arbs who don't really use CU/OS give up their bits upon their term ending now and days, so requiring a reapproval seems kind of pointless to me. If former Arbs are consistently being crummy functionaries, then I would understand the desire for a reappointment process, but I wouldn't really know anything about that. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung[edit]

  2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?
    Hello Kudpung– of course thorough investigation and reading is needed when it comes to diffs/evidence presented in a case. There's little point in having a vetted evidence phase if that is not done. As someone who has clerked and read over several cases, I know that not all aspirations/supposed evidence ends up making it into the PD, whether because it's out of scope or because the editing displayed was not noteworthy or sanctionable.
  4. In your opinion, are sitting arbitrators exempt from due process if and when they commit an indiscretion that would get a normal editor blocked or sanctioned?
    No, they are not. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean existing conflicts and social connections cloud judgement and impede accountability like they do elsewhere on Wikipedia. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked all candidates the same questions Thank you for your answers, Moneytrees. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question from lettherebedarklight[edit]

  2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    lettherebedarklight, because it is important to the world and it is important to me. I enjoy editing and have learned an immense amount about not just the world but also how things really work, and I want to continue to do so. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Anythingyouwant[edit]

  2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anythingyouwant, I've read both. I'm honestly not really invested in the conflict between the two essays. When it comes to denials about x y and z, I think their inclusion needs to take into account what sources say, due weight, and mindfulness around BLPs, and that these values will naturally vary between articles. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Femke[edit]

  2. Being a party to an Arbcom case is usually highly stressful. It's no surprise editors often choose to leave the project after an outcome like a warning or desysop. What do you think the committee can and should do to make the experience less painful for involved editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Femke, being on time with announcements and decisions and taking enough time to make a thoughtful vote while also avoiding elongating the process are good starts. The committee has had shortened evidence phases in recent cases, which I think can be used to mitigate stress for narrower disputes such as ones focusing on the conduct of one or a specific few editors. Avoiding actions creating an impression of a "forgone conclusion" is good too. A tight and thorough proposed decision and putting less weight on/outright removing "peanut gallery" type comments is something I'd support. I remember from my clerk days that a lot of ink gets spilled over cases, but a good deal of it doesn't have much effect on the proposed decision. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Candidates/Moneytrees&oldid=1122646068"