User:Carrite/ACE2017

=Timbo's ArbCom 2017 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...

"The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work."


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



Perfunctory introductory
Well, by golly, it is that time again... Another round of elections for English Wikipedia's Discipline Committee, ArbCom. Many of you have been following my comments about the various candidates at Wikipediocracy in the thread entitled "WP Sado-Masochism Festival — It's 2017 Arbcom Election Time!" Those of you who don't read that off-Wiki message board are invited to do so, the annual threads there about the ArbCom Elections are typically among the site's most compelling reading for Wikipedians each year.

I would summarize the situation like this: The shrieking and stupidity associated with ArbCom proceedings has attenuated greatly over the past two years, and deadlines are actually being met with some regularity. One has to credit the current cast of characters for the improvement, and while I don't support them all, neither do I want to send the whole pack of them ice-fishing in Antarctica. As a group they've performed tolerably well, although there is a bit of unhappiness percolating to the effect that emails to ArbCom by blocked or banned editors are being vanished into the memory hole without proper acknowledgment. Consider fixing this problem, no matter who wins this election.

ArbCom is basically En-WP's main oversight mechanism over allegations of administrative abuse, among other things, and thus is important for that reason alone. It has been taking fewer and fewer cases — which is good — and holding Administrators to high standards of behavior — which is also good. We should expect no less.

One of the most hilarious turns of phrase to have emerged out of this election is a line by calling being forced to read the ArbCom mailing list for two years the "Shit Bucket Challenge." He linked to a screen shot of his record bad day fielding email, showing 644 unopened pieces on his spooler. This opened up a bit of discussion at Wikipediocracy leading my asking NYB whether things were really still as bad as all that. He put up the reply on my usertalk, which I reproduce here:

"About ArbCom workload" by New York Brad

Virtually all aspects of the ArbCom workload are down, not only (obviously) from the peak of circa 2006-2008, but also from even relatively recent years like 2011-2013.

For context, at this point, ArbCom does four primary things:

• Deals with user-conduct problems that no one else can resolve. This includes admin-conduct cases because only ArbCom can desysop involuntarily, as well as editors perceived as having a mix of good contributions and problematic behavior so the noticeboards can't decide what (if anything) to do. This workload is down because for better or worse, the vast majority of these issues are now resolved on the noticeboards or other venues. • Decides which topic-areas are so replete with controversy, edit-warring, and name-calling that the ordinary editing rules should be supplanted with the more restrictive "discretionary sanctions" regime or one of its variants. This workload is down because many of the most contentious topics are under DS already. • Deals with issues that involve private information that shouldn't be discussed on-wiki. This workload is down as the WMF Office has agreed to deal with some of the most troublesome aspects. The daily e-mail load is still significant but it does not even come close to the era that Iridescent has described. • Selects Checkusers and Oversighters. That's a process we take very seriously, but it only takes place one or twice a year.

The only area where the workload might be up a bit is on the "clarifications-and-amendments" page, because with each passing year, a larger percentage of on-wiki disputes are outgrowths of or related to earlier disputes rather than brand-new ones.

At this point, an arbitrator who also wanted to continue working in a content area should be able to. There will be times when deciding a case or participating in an important e-mail thread should take priority over other wiki-work, but that wouldn't be all the time or even most of the time. (On the other hand, if the arbitrator also decided to make regular use of the Checkuser right that comes on request with arbship and start plugging away on SSI, for example, that would be an additional time commitment. And I would say the same about Oversight, but there are relatively few suppressions these days as compared with rev-deletions, which any admin can now do.)

I hope this helps for you, and for anyone thinking about running. Just my individual perceptions and experience, of course.

Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting. These are things to bear in mind as one assesses the various candidates...

What follows are my own views of the various people taking a step forward to run in this race. (Thank you to all of you for your service.) Do not confuse this list with who I think is actually going to win — I am no Cabalista, and although I do have a pretty good feel for the majority perspective of the community, I do not always share it. In general I believe ArbCom needs a little bit of acidity to balance out the flavors and value courage and dissidence over safety and conformity. Nor am I a metaphorical "bomb thrower" — I am a committed Wikipedian and a Wikipedia critic, both, believing that only through dissent can problems be identified and rectified. I urge you to step a bit outside the box with one or more of your votes so that the committee does not devolve into bureaucratic self-satisfaction, but rather hears a certain percentage of new voices and new ideas. While chaos is bad, change can be good.

=My ranked recommendations=

Highest possible endorsement
(1) Opabinia regalis — I'm enormously pleased that OR is returning for a second stint on the committee. Two years ago it appeared that there was an organized "Civility Party" attempting to take over the committee with a view to purging grumpy content people. OR appeared to be part of this "Civility Movement," but gave every indication of reasonability. I'm pleased that whatever hysterical shrieking about the danger that I did was misplaced. Moreover, OR has not only proven a reasonable soul and a fetter upon extreme action, but has demonstrated herself to be introspective, intelligent, and responsive. I put her next to New York Brad as spiritual leaders for the betterment of the committee. She should pull in a NYB-like massive percentage of the vote in the current contest, and with good reason. Long may she reign.

(2) The Rambling Man — Perhaps an opposite personality to OR, TRM is the rice vinegar for the kale. If anyone has legitimate cause for complaint of victimization by the current committee, it is he. His civility violations were piffling, in my view, yet he got whacked with The Big Mallet. A grumpy content writer who formerly held both Administrator and Bureaucrat flags, TRM has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and will provide the sort of forceful moral suasion necessary to get the committee to improve its greatest remaining problem, lack of communication with supplicants, complainants, and defendants. Look at him as Mark II, that's what you need to do. He'll be good.

(3) RickInBaltimore — I supported this fellow when he ran two years ago as an ordinary editor, I thought he would do a good job then and I still think he would. After the election, I told him that if he really wants to be taken seriously by ArbCom voters, he needed to change his user name from "WildThingRandomDigits" to something more...... namelike. And then to submit to the RFA gauntlet and gain the Admin flag. And then to be a good Administrator, saying and doing nothing inflammatory and stupid while actively doing good stuff. He cleared his RFA by a score of 199 to 3 or some such and has done yeoman work as a vandal fighter. Now it is time for the community to reward two years of dedication and commitment in pursuit of this objective. I'm sure he'll be a credit to the team.

Also supporting
(4) Krakatoa Katie — This is what ArbCommers are supposed to look like: ample experience, Administrator and other tools, content work, clean block log, and has actually been involved with Wikipedia sometime in the last couple, you know, years. She'll finish #2 in the vote count to OR. Yaay.

(5) Worm That Turned — Dave Craven is a good dude, a highly experienced and competent former Arb. I don't have a clue why he didn't reclaim his Admin buttons before jumping into the election, that makes his entry into the race at the 11th hour seem like a spur of the moment decision. If he's serious about this, he'll have the bit back before voting starts. If not, well, he's got nobody to blame but himself when he loses.

(6) SarekOfVulcan — I did not like Sarek when I was first getting involved with Wikipedia in 2009 and 2010 and 2011. He was frankly not very likable, an abrasive and aggressive personality, a comical contradiction to the television namesake. But on the road to Damascus, a bright light fell from the sky, and the unloved and unlovable Sarek was cast aside, and the normal human being Garrett Fitzgerald emerged. Sarek heard community complaints and took steps to improve himself and to eliminate his sometimes warriorlike editing behavior. With administrative tools restored, he has been a benefit to the project ever since. Bad Sarek is five years in the rearview mirror. I urge you to put Good Garrett on the committee.

(7) Alex Shih — After the start of the election Alex has popped over to the Wikipediocracy message board to say hello (don't hold it against him, New York Brad periodically does the same thing). He seems earnest in his desire for a seat on the committee, although I have a hunch he will be narrowly out of the top eight finishers this year. I will be voting for him as I think Alex would be quite okay. He is an administrator — which for a lot of voters is an essential for any candidate — but his contribution history shows some uncomfortably large gaps. What he will need to do, assuming he doesn't win this year, is demonstrate 12 consecutive months of dedicated activity, doing some percentage of selfless administrative-type things and some percentage of good content work. Then one year hence he will be in the same place that Rick in Baltimore is in this year — a widely supported candidate that has been working towards ArbCom as a goal.

(8) Premeditated Chaos — A fellow Canadian to Alex Shih, PMC has many of the same strengths in terms of possessing the buttons and a long tenure, and the identical weakness — enormous gaps in participation that would probably have rendered her a non-factor in this election if there were one or two more current Arbs willing to say, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" I think she has a very good chance of gaining election because of this: PMC has contributed solidly to Wikipedia in 2017 and has done an excellent job navigating the questions. I believe in picking 8 to fill 8 seats and have no problems with the idea of PMC on the committee. I'm sure she'll do an excellent job.

- - - - -

Just Say No
BU Rob13 — A contribution history barely over two years old. First edits were to a debate at Templates for Discussion. A massive explosion of activity, bursting from zero to 180 miles per hour. Extremely rapid advancement to Administrator. Fast assumption of Check User rights. Now it's ArbCom. What's up for next year, the Founder's Seat on the WMF Board??? I understand that what I can say here is limited because of our governing principle of Assuming Good Faith, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to sign off as being oblivious to what seems so patently obvious.

S McCandlish — After I spotted more than 5,000 edits racked up to Manual of Style talk pages, that was all I needed to see. Nope. Not my guy.

Mailer diablo — Jack shit production since 2007 and dives into the race 24 hours before the close of nominations with a spate of acronyms, all sorts of fancy bureaucratic credentials, and a promise of being a hardline advocate of a so-called "No Asshole Rule." Ummm, the war is over, but you apparently missed it.

You have got to be kidding me...


A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver — A Wikipedian from November 2006 as User:Adek21. Either the worst user name ever or the second worst. I'm not impressed with the contribution history and still less with a few of his responses to questions. And I am being very polite.

Sir Joseph — More likely to be a party to an ArbCom case than a member of ArbCom in 2018. I got my fill and then some with his ultra-aggressive assumptions of bad faith, innuendo that I am anti-Semitic and/or persecuting him for his religion, and relentless badgering in the questions section. See that for the shape of the leopard's spots. See also his extensive block log for more information. One of the scariest candidates since I've been following ArbCom politics.

-

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.