User:Carrite/ACE2015

=Timbo's ArbCom 2015 Voters Guide=

The barely-filtered views of a jaded, Political Correctness-hating, NPOV-loving middle-aged pinko content writer that spends way too much time hanging out at Wikipediocracy...

"We are here to build an encyclopedia, not sing Kumbaya, and this is a shop floor."

"The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work."
 * —Wehwalt, July 30, 2014. ::::::::::::::


 * ("The Øth law of Wikipedia, Author unknown, nicked from Raul's Laws.) :::::::::

Perfunctory introductory
Let's not mince words: the ArbCom of 2015 has been shitty. They have been horrifically slow, they have utterly lacked transparency, they have failed to take timely decisive action where needed (Scalhotrod), they have failed to make reasonable accommodations for the return of Net Positive editors with checkered pasts to advance the cause of The Project (Richard Norton, Rich Farmborough). Now they're futzing around with an Eric Corbett case they never should have taken and which never would have been necessary had it not been for the inane requirement for "escalating blocks" that this ArbCom dangled over his head in a previous case.

There aren't more than three of the sitting Arbs that I would support for re-election... It has been an absolutely miserable failure of a year for The Committee. I wish I could say things are going to get better in 2016, but given who is staying and who is leaving and the nature of the current crop of hopefuls, it probably is not.

The level of support maintained by ArbCom is at an all-time low, as nearly as I can tell. The loss of New York Brad was enormous and now with Roger Davies not coming back to help keep the freight train on the rails, god help us all...

Here is my message, ArbCom and ArbCom wannabes, please listen well:

1. Be fast. Get rid of the Workshop garbage completely. Set an actual deadline for Proposed Decision and stick to it. It should take three weeks, not three months.

2. Be transparent. Model yourselves upon an American local government under open meeting laws. Debate in public, not by email, unless privacy requirements absolutely mandate a secret "executive session." Get rid of the secret testimony of poison pens by email. Your workload will actually decrease in the process — win, win.

3. Be humble. Drop the Supreme Court pretense. You're a fucking Discipline Committee for a website, you're not the Supreme Court. You're gonna make mistakes from time to time and what you say is not the last word of law. Dispatch with the pomp and cut to the chase with decisions.

4. Be fair. Administer discipline where it is needed, but allow a realistic path back to good grace for Net Positive editors who have screwed up or strayed.

All right, let's take a good look at these candidates, shall we?


 * —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

''Addendum: I am juggling position of a couple of NO names, one of which I didn't punch hard enough and another of which I downgraded a bit unfairly without adequate explanation due to a personal incident in which I believe they behaved unreasonably. Not that anyone cares particularly, no still means no in either case... (I heard ya, A.L.) Carrite (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)''

''Addendum: A couple more switches, moving Kudpung to Oppose and Wildthing61476 to Support. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC) ''

The recommendations
I'm scamming this info box from Dave, a reform-minded ex-Arb:

Strongest Possible Support

 * Drmies — Snarky and iconoclastic. A reasonable and intelligent person.
 * Opabinia regalis - Although this long term Wikipedian came back on board in connection with the gender gap controversy at WP that has been made into a news story in the media, I have been impressed with Opabinia r.'s moderation and wisdom. I think she will make a fine Arb. Words for reflection from her very intelligent candidate-questions page: "I really think that conflating incivility and harassment has had a major role in contributing to the polarization surrounding this issue."
 * Casliber - Solid support.

Support

 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - Encounters at AfD have been positive, seems a critic of the vacuous and potentially defamatory barely-sourced porn bios that plague WP. More than enough reason to support right there.
 * NE Ent - His reply to Smallbones' loaded question about bullying was golden: Finally, as previously explained at Founder talk: If Smallbones is concerned with bullying, their first step should be to stop acting like a bully . WP:BANREVERT says to remove comments, and if Smallbones was simply removing edits by those-who-have-sorta-talkpage-banned-by-Jimbo -- preferrably with a neutral edit summary --I'd be supportive. Rather, they replace the comments with statements in the form of "Removed comment by Naughty, signed Smallbones( smalltalk )," which reads like grandstanding "Look at me removing comments from him, who is bad person, inferior to us enlightened folk!" nonsense. NE Ent 9:39 am, 14 November 2015, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC−5) Rather than heeding such obliviously good advice, they then doubled down on the hypocrisy by justifying their bullying by calling the other editor "a troll".
 * Kelapstick - Kelapstick seems a sensible person based upon answers to questions.
 * Timtrent - It is long past time for non-Admins to serve on ArbCom. Tim seems a sensible person based upon answers to questions. withdrew
 * Wildthing61476 - A decent set of answers to questions, but after fingers being burned by lesser-known candidates elected in the last cycle, not fully on this train at this point. Moving to support with withdrawal of Tim Trent and Kudpung's on-wiki expression of lack of fidelity to democratic process.

- - - - - - - -

Just Say No

 * Thryduulf - The only member of the current ArbCom worthy of further support in the role is Roger Davies. Thryduulf is no Roger Davies.
 * LFaraone - The only member of the current ArbCom worthy of further support in the role is Roger Davies. LFaraone is no Roger Davies.
 * GorillaWarfare - The only member of the current ArbCom worthy of further support in the role is Roger Davies. GW is no Roger Davies. A member of the Friendly Space caucus but has demonstrated good judgment for the most part in recusing when she needed to recuse. Still, the mishandling of the Scalhotrod situation is more or less a disqualifier for me for her or any but the wisest incumbent.
 * Callanecc - Part of the ArbCom bureaucratic problem, in my estimation. We need new blood.
 * Keilana - A co-moderator of Gender Gap-list, the WMF's hyperpoliticized mailing list. I have not been impressed by her fairness there in my own particular case, leveling the banhammer instead of marching off yardage for a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (or for UK readers: giving me a red card with no yellow card for a fairly run-of-the-mill transgression). Expect her to play sides hard when she is on the committee.
 * Mahensingha - Replies to queries were too terse to answer the really big questions.
 *  Rich Farmbrough - While I am highly sympathetic to his mishandling and mistreatment by the current ArbCom, Rich remains under ArbCom sanctions, which I believe should be a disqualifier for him.
 * Hawkeye7 - Desysopped for cause. Pass another RFA, then we can talk...
 * Kudpung - Long-time Wikipedian who is a fixture of the RFA process. I have confidence in him. ''Moved from Support due to his statement that the results of this election should be abrogated — ostensibly since "the wrong sort of people" were notified.

You have got to be kidding me...

 * Kevin Gorman - Co-moderator of the Gender Gap-list, the WMF's hyperpoliticized mailing list. On that list has clearly intimated that factional organizing and bloc voting should take place to bring about "Civility" on WP. A drama monger and politics-pusher of the highest order.
 * Kirill Lokshin - We learned with the ill-considered return of Courcelles to ArbCom in the 2014 election that leopards do not change their spots. Kirill is one of the co-organizers of Wikiconference DC, which banned Greg Kohs from attending with no rationale, no evidence, no right of response, and no appeal. This is a manifestation of the sort of prejudiced behavior that should be avoided at all costs on ArbCom. Has barely been around En-WP in the past year, he's so busy busy busy with other WMF affairs... Oh, he did come back long enough make another Eric Corbett mess, good going there... At least he was self-righteous about it.
 * Mark Bernstein - GamerGate just isn't fun any more. Moving on to a new "game," clearly. We've seen the blog and the way coverage of his one-sided spin of Wikipolitics magically appeared in The Guardian. Truly an eye-opener for me about how easily the media can be made to dance, something that hasn't been lost upon the Friendly Spacers.
 * Gamaliel - Maintenance of NPOV is imperative for the longterm health of The Project. After Gamergate shenanigans and pious editorializing at the Signpost, I have zero confidence that this candidate shares this orientation.

A smart quote for the road...
"In five years I haven't noticed a sexist culture here at all but I don't go looking for it. I have noticed pov pushers, coi editors, editors who can't write a sensible sentence, editors who don't/won't/can't comprehend what they read, overlinkers and triviamongers. Perhaps that is because I usually concentrate on content not talk pages. I find it difficult to tolerate talk-page politicians, long-winded, droning-on arguments about who is and isn't civil or what is and isn't right. I don't much care for dragging up past history or picking over old wounds, settling old scores, snivelling about perceived wrongs, folks who attack others without even noticing they're doing it, pages and pages of rehashing arguments and having the last word. I can/could do/probably have done some/all of those things and more but I am not perfect and am aware when I do it. This project should be trying to retain editors who contribute decent content for the reader, not those who persist in looking for the worst in others, making assumptions and telling others how to behave. As far as attracting new editors I'd steer them right away from talk pages and encourage them towards content. Content beats politics any day in my book and if the balance swings towards politics that's when I'll look for the exit." —J3Mrs (talk) 2:16 pm, 11 October 2014.