User:Carrite/ACE2016



=Timbo's ArbCom 2016 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...

Perfunctory introductory
A year ago we were coming off one of the worst ArbComs ever and in the midst of a heated campaign in which an organized interest group was seemingly gearing up for political action, intent on electing a slate as part of a program to crack down on rudeness and wrongness among core Wikipedia volunteers. No appreciation or allowance was to be made for the long-observed fact that some of the most productive and useful content writers are, y'know, grumpy sons of bitches. It was to be a brave new world of harmony and light; the actual content-writing community would be gutted...

A funny thing happened on the way to the revolution. After pulling tools from one of their own (RIP, Kevin), they waited a month -- and another month -- and another month before taking a case. Whether it was because some of the most corrosive cases had already been decided or some of the most noxious editors had already been tossed or because the community was on its best behavior in fear and apprehension of the new No Nonsense Arbcom, case flow receded to a trickle. Wikipedia icon New York Brad counts 5 cases for the year, of which he feels 2 shouldn't have happened, and that sounds like it is on the money.

The limited cases which were accepted had their clownish elements, perpetrated by a couple of the usual suspects, but all in all the bar for Arbcom case acceptance was high and they mostly got things right. One of the most controversial members of the committee even took an early walk. It was indeed a year of harmony and light, in a way, but one entirely different from that anticipated by those favoring or fearing a quixotic civil war against so-called "incivility." They even met their self-imposed deadlines, more or less!

With the Arbcom ship now righted and Arbcom's power and purpose attenuating, it seems that the drama behind this whole Arbcom election thing has been revealed as being more than a tad overwrought. Indeed, this year instead of a "Civility Slate" and political organizing, we have the spectacle of 11 more or less serious, mostly vanilla, candidates vying for 7 open seats. No matter which of them end up winning (and I've already made my predictions at Wikipediocracy), the world will go on. We aren't talking about the growing fascist menace in America here, after all... So, good luck to all the candidates.

Here is my annual injunction, 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) 17:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Support

 * Newyordbrad - Brad will probably set a new record for percentage of support in an Arbcom election, and for good reason. He is experienced, knows how the process works, has the wisdom to refuse cases that should be refused and the gravitas to convince others to do likewise, and knows how to cut to the chase in writing decisions. About the worst thing you can say about him is that he was an accomplice to the unjust and unfair treatment meted out to my friend Greg Kohs by WikiConUSA organizers -- and even Greg sees that as venial rather than mortal sin.


 * DeltaQuad - A member of the current (mostly fixed) committee who has demonstrated consistently good judgment throughout, both in the debates about case acceptance and the debates about decisions. Whatever misgivings I had about the current committee and whatever mistakes they committed had very little to do with DQ.

Support

 * Doug Weller - See above for DeltaQuad, with the exception that my confidence level in DW being there in the clutch to do the right thing is slightly lower. One of the top vote-getters in the 2014 election, maybe THE top vote-getter, I'm too lazy to look it up...


 * Salvidrim! - Subject of an attack blog post by Bernstein and a loaded question from a Gamergate Controversy-related "alternate account." Well, he has pissed off all the right people, we can say that. Seems a reasonable person at Wikipedioocracy and probably will serve as a useful offset to a couple of the Always Wrong people who are still sitting on the committee.


 * Ks0stm - Clearly has been preparing for this position for some time, which isn't totally a good thing. Some of the clerking has been pretty aggressive in the past, not sure if they are to be praised or condemned on that ground. Still, after falling short in an election, the nose was put to the grindstone, and that is admirable.

Tepid support

 * Euryalus & LFaraone - Members of Arbcom from the bad old days. Certainly not the worst of that crew, but my line from last year -- that only NYB deserved support from that bunch -- is pretty much unchanged. Picking 7 out of 11 sneaks this pair over the cut line. Hopefully they weren't the cause of the problem before, it is difficult to tell owing to the lack of committee transparency.

- - - -

Just Say No

 * Writ Keeper - A 3 word platform, and proud of it? Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Probably would be a fine committee member if elected, but I've just spent 15 times more words and twice the effort with this description than they did with their opening statement. Pack your bags.


 * DGG - To say that I am disappointed in DGG is an understatement, at one point I dropped him a note on his user talk and strongly suggested that he resign. Absolutely zero discernible leadership on any issue facing Arbcom, WikiConUSA connections that get my backhair up, a feather in the wind in the decision-making process. I've also found myself disagreeing with him at AfD with increasing regularity and there are philosophical issues coming to light there, too. Really sad that he has turned out like he has on the committee. (He will probably be elected to another term, mind you...)


 * Mkdw - Blowing the Friendly Spacer dog whistle. They're not the only ones who can hear that, y'know...


 * Calidum - There will be a candidate elected to ArbCom before too much longer who is not an Administrator, but this isn't it. Probably would do a fine job on the committee, but not gonna win with an 0-2 record running for the position. Advice: get Administrative tools, use them well, try again in a couple years...

You have got to be kidding me...
Not Applicable.

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.