User:Hawkeye7/ACE 2014

Preamble
November. Time for another Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) election.

Issues

 * 1) Over time ArbCom has accumulated an number of additional tasks in addition to its primary function of hearing cases and clarifications/amendments. Partly as a result, ArbCom now hears fewer cases, and takes longer to hear them. This has led to calls for reform of ArbCom's duties and procedures, stripping it of non-essential functions, and overhauling its processes to speed up handling of cases.
 * 2) ArbCom defines issues as being all about editor conduct, and refuses to hear content disputes. Then complains that it while it hands down blocks and bans, the underlying issues do not get resolved (usually because they were not addressed).
 * 3) ArbCom frequently holds discussions and gathers evidence in secret, and often refuses to publish the reasons behind its decisions. This had led to community push back in the form of calls for greater transparency.
 * 4) ArbCom is elected, and as the saying goes, elections produce politicians. A common criticism of ArbCom is that it attracts people who are here mainly for the politics and drama, and have scant understanding of the processes of content creation. This has resulted in a number of candidates running as content creators.
 * 5) Another is that ArbCom responds too much to political pressures, and therefore is unwilling to tackle entrenched interests or make hard decisions.
 * 6) And it has also been suggested that in some cases its representative nature makes it part of the problem rather than the solution.
 * 7) On the other hand, some groups of editors, such as the "subject experts", the "general editors" and the Bot maintainers (ie everybody involved in actually building the encyclopaedia) have felt that too many members of ArbCom have a background in OTRS and clerking, and do not understand or appreciate their problems.

So let's have a look at the candidates.


 * Not a content creator. Less than a third of his meagre 7,000 edits are in the article space. Running on a platform of increasing transparency.


 * Long time Arb who's well beyond his use-by date. Used to be a content creator, but has become something of a gnome. Running on a platform of reforming ArbCom's subcommittees and processes. Might be able to do it too, so if that is your number one issue, Courcelles might be your number one candidate.


 * A checkuser. Typical of the sort of background that has produced too many of the members of ArbCom over time who have created the current situation. Only an appalling 13 percent of his edits are in the mainspace. Admits that ArbCom's subcommittees and processes need reform.


 * Has some experience with content and outreach work. On transparency: "I have been advised by NYBrad and the Foundation that public discussion of the details would best be avoided." On process reform: "Six weeks isn't too bad". On content creators: "Wikipedia needs content creators; but content creators who can work in a cooperative way within the Wikipedia environment. Many excellent writers may prefer an environment where they have greater control over what they write, and where they need not interact directly with critics--at least until they have completed their work. If so, they should work elsewhere"


 * Arb clerk who quit a couple of years back. thinks he's a candidate. Why doesn't Bishonen run? No record of content creation. Doesn't see ArbCom as having a role in addressing the Gender Gap. Has no fixed opinions, which could mean he would be a swing vote. Or a waste of space.


 * No record of content creation. I thought he quit after his failed RfA. Not holding that against him; when the community comes down hard against you, you should do some serious self-examination. Goes for months at a time without editing, so would probably be absent for most ArbCom cases.


 * Content creator. "We therefore need to create the editing environment that enables subject experts to understand that their contributions are respected, and that others will assist in protecting high article standards" Also wants "more detailed decision rationales to reduce the need for followup clarifications" and "swifter acceptance of cases involving administrator misconduct".


 * has a drawer full of socks. Not a content creator, and not a lot of edits. Short on ideas, and not very good at expounding the ones he has. Lots of one-word answers don't give me much faith that he has ample time on his hands.


 * Another former ArbCom clerk, running on reforming ArbCom's subcommittees and processes. If you've been reading from the top down, you'll notice that this is what gets the insiders' blood pumping. Not so sure that the community cares as much though. Has solid ideas for reform in this area. Not a content creator, and not fond of editors who are.


 * Running as a content creator. Has a Featured Article and works with the content creators at FLC. On the down side, has no ideas for reform, and the content reviewers are unhappy with COPYVIOs. It seems running for ArbCom is a great way to get people to review your stuff.


 * Tries to be light hearted and upbeat. I respect that, because the current state of Wikipedia would move some to tears. Has few ideas as to what to do about it. Likes content creators: "We need to get better at outreach and education, bringing in these subject experts to become more knowledgeable editors themselves. These are the people who will be most familiar with the sources, and we need them for that alone, nevermind everything else they would have to contribute."


 * Another content creator. Has created over 1600 articles, and they're not stubs. ("for me it's a question of attitude rather than quantity") This is the kind of editor that used to make up the majority, the kind that created the project, but most have moved on over the last six years, supplanted by subject experts, gnomes and bots. Admits to reading the drama boards without commenting. "On a day-to-day basis, if getting caught in a (non)-argument with such editors, I eventually ask myself 'Does it really harm Wikipedia? Will Wikipedia break down as a result of their view being adopted?' If not, I bow out, and move on." He sees no need for reform. I see no need for another person on the ArbCom who can be replaced by a bobblehead.


 * Another OTRS and ArbCom clerk. (Must find out more about OTRS some time.) Has written some GAs for the US Roads Project. Has no desire to reform ArbCom. No idea why he's running actually. With this year's field, he might have a chance, but so would a drover's dog.


 * Most memorably, had New York Brad reach for his dictionary of Latin legal phrases! And, as we all know When a Wikipedian uses Latin, you can be sure they are up to no good. No reform agenda. Wants your vote because "I don't think I've been a lousy arb so far". Heaven knows how many Arbs would not get re-elected if we held them to so loftly a standard.


 * Not an admin, and with a whopping 1,600 edits since 2006, it's hard to see him passing an RfA if elected. Of course, Arb election is a lot easier than RfA. The odds are nearly fifty-fifty.


 * Claims to be a "level-headed person", but has a block record that says otherwise. Can write bots, so might be a help for the technically challenged Arbs.


 * Has been a Wikipedian since Jimbo Wales was a baby, but still hasn't written a GA or FA. (Should ask him if he got his admin bits from an RfA or through the mail.) Doesn't like Commons much. That's another plus in my book.
 * Update: it was from an RfA in 2005. Should have run a search before typing.


 * Another Bot operator. Put himself forward because he saw hardly anyone was running. (Actually, most people like to nominate only at the very last minute.) What does he have to say? "'Subject experts' should consider the feedback they get from 'general editors', and endeavor to make their contributions understandable to laymen, to the extent that is possible. I'm not really familiar with this area of tension between editors, so can only answer the question in general terms. Oh, now I recall that a university professor got some press after some of his Haymarket affair edits failed to stick." (Head desk)


 * Like Wbm1058, he likes to avoid Wiki-drama, which makes ArbCom a natural choice. Does not want ArbCom to be reformed, just work effectively. Although I can't for the life of me see how you can accomplish one without the other. On Subject Experts: "I contend that it takes very little time to become what you term a 'general editor'; half-an-hour of reading is enough to give anyone a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works. Any 'subject expert' who has a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia shouldn't have much trouble avoiding the common pitfalls. The only time I see this division becoming a problem is when 'general editors' consider themselves to be somehow superior to 'subject experts' - we have a near-infinite supply of people who can recognise and revert vandalism, but only a handful who can accurately describe Megaponera. The role of the 'general editors' then, is to support and assist those with more specialist knowledge, and help them to understand how Wikipedia works so that they can get fully involved." Wow. I think he underestimates how difficult it is to be even a general editor these days (I spent a whole day just learning Lua), but I still think that's worth a standing ovation.

Disclaimers

 * 1) The opinions expressed here are mine alone.