User talk:Barkeep49/ACE

Personal knowledge of candidates
This was the first year where I had at least a passing knowledge of each candidate. This might reflect the age of my account, a narrowing of the field to those who participate in more general forums than more specialist ones, or just random chance. I imagine personal knowledge of candidates is a significant factor in who a voter chooses to support or oppose, but it's hard to know how important it is compared with, say, the candidate statements. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Great point, . Personal experience with the candidates definitely matters. However, my supposition is that most voters won't have had personal experiences with most candidates. I mean I'm a pretty visible and active editor and one who at least lurks at most of our prominent forums and I still had no clue who BDD was before they ran. So I would imagine you're in a minority having some kind of passing knowledge of all the candidates before the election started. I'm going to add in a section about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments
At the risk of being yelled at for displaying a big black banner on my user pages but continuing to make the occasional edit, I'll comment on this essay of yours. (BTW, one particularly prominent character displays such a banner but their prolific editing pattern has never changed at at all!). I just  wish  I  could be as consequent  as Ad Orientem about  my retirement and put  my  middle finger up  to  the whole thing, but  I  have to  use the encyclopedia many  times daily.

However, since the radical change to my editing status pronounced by Arbcom early last year, at least my editing history will show that I have been fairly true to my word, having gone from being the only editor who apparently never sleeps, to one whose participation has dropped to almost nothing at all. I'm doing this now, and all in one edit, because during the history of Wikipedia, only four (or perhaps five) present or former members of the Arbitration Committee in the past 15 years have ever really gained my entire respect, and with you, that now makes one more (I deeply regret 's decision to  withdraw from the election, but  I know for a fact  that  he now has commitments in  RL that  would conflict  with  the time required to  be an effective member of the group).

Considering the number of successful RFA over the years, very few Admins have actually been desysoped 'for cause', and few enough for it to be possible to review each case as a learning ground for a new or aspiring member of Arbcom. In contrast however, the Committee's own history is riddled with corrupt or expelled former members or ones who discretely left under a cloud or before their sins found them out. So lest anyone accuse me of a recent campaign 'against' the Committee, I have therefore been wary of Arbcom, its existence, and its MO (in the true sense) for many years.

So let's get on with it:

Unhappy people at the Arbitration noticeboard
Massively overrated. I don't believe that the long-term members who are repeatedly re-elected have become in any way calcified. Some of them, for different reasons,  have my  greatest  respect,  and have the level  of maturity and the very best qualifications and experience in RL for a place on the Committee. What I have determined  - without mentioning names - are some who are in my considered opinion, are perhaps not sufficiently mature  to be vested with such power, but that may not be immediately evident to most users who don't sleuth around like I do, or who have such a good and long memory.

Candidate statements
Massively underrated. Indeed, these probably more than anything else are the deciding elements for voters, though  exactly  how many  voters actually  take time to  examine the candidate more thoroughly is not  quantifiable. Over the years, many successful candidates have clearly not  upheld the claims they made during  their campaign.

Extended candidate statements
Not enough data. - and probably  massively  underrated, but  again it  comes down to how many  of the thousands of voters actually click away  basically  at  random  on  the list  of names on the voting page. Candidates opting to  make use of the extended statement  must  nevertheless be extremely  introspective and avoid what  might  be perceived as self-aggrandising.

Candidate questions
Overrated. You are possibly  right  that  they they get relatively few views beyond the poser. They are often time wasting  or even pure nonsense of the kind we see on  RfA of the kind "Oh, I  am allowed to  ask  questions. Goody, I'll  thing of something  to  ask". Some questions are therefore totally irrelevant  or off-topic while others, however, are more sinister and are designed on purpose by vindictive users or those with  an axe to  grind, to bait the candidate,  or are  harassment and  personal attacks of the kind that  would be sanctioned elsewhere, but  where, again  like RfA, the candidate would be ill  advised to defend themselves. I believe that candidates should have a clear right to  ignore such  questions. Moreover, if the clerks were truly literate and doing  their job properly, they  would remove such blatant  harassment.

Viability of non-admin candidates
Underrated. I generally agree with your analysis. A successful trial by fire at RfA should of course be a prerequisite for Arbcom. Nevertheless the very wordy but  highly  intelligent  user, our undisputed guardian of the MoS, who  gives great  thought  to what  they  say, could be a possible exception and a valuable member of the committee and might  lead to  a change in  the unwritten  rule, but should preferably first attempt running the 7-day  gauntlet  of hell.

Candidate's qualifications as shown on the generic candidate guide
Properly rated. I generally agree with your analysis. There are nevertheless unavoidably some candidates for 'Cratship' and Arbcom who are possibly trying to climb a greasy pole in the belief that a career on WP is good for their CV in RL. If the 'crats were to be abolished as a user group, what would we replace them with? Even more power to the Arbcom? (heaven forbid). I would prefer to think up more tasks for them to lend more raison d'être for the existence of the group. Perhaps something on the lines of WP:BARC that I suggested a few years ago.

Candidate guides
Overrated. I haven't examined the hit stats, but you may probably be right that the users who read them are mainly the authors of other Candidate Guides, and the candidates themselves - which might serve as a worthwhile knee jerk to some of the candidates. I wrote one for ACE2020 but I was careful to not actually say which way I would vote. I tried very hard to be objective. I'm sure you read it. The preamble and introduction are actually the most important parts. Personally I think these guides should be deprecated - they are often little more than just another platform for vindictive users or those with an axe to  grind, to  harass and  personally attack the candidate(s) with impunity.

Candidate's content creation
Underrated. Indeed, the main reason for participating in Wikipedia is to build the encyclopedia and ensure its content complies with policy and philosophy. This content creation needs to be obvious to potential voters, and users who joined Wikipedia with a greater intent to police the the project and its users and climb its greasy pole than build it, have missed the message of what an encyclopedia is, and they are not wanted on board.

Personal experience with the candidates
Properly rated. I agree with all you say here, although it's generally rare for me not to have at least already heard of the candidates.

Conclusion
The criteria for voting at ACE should be tightened up. Too many users vote who clearly don't have much of a clue about the inner workings of Wikipedia (I've gone through the list of voters), and many of them are just not interested and just want to get on with editing articles, but lure them to the voting page by spamming thousands of them, and vote they will.

Over the years there have been 70 Arbitration  clerks, among whom 17  were later elected arbitrator. Roughly half are (or were) admins. The tasks of clerks are clearly laid out. Their work maintaining the pages may be what is expected but their policing of the participants may possibly not be entirely consistent, particularly where behavioural issues continue to stand unaddressed. Don't ask for citations because a citation cannot be provided for an action that a clerk did not do.

If the Committee is supposed to be regarded as the Community's bridge to the WMF, then they should either do it with conviction or leave it up to the community who can voice themselves very clearly as they did over the Framban. IMO, the Committee has become a simple playground for wannabe power users who want to play being senior police officers, jury, judge, and executioner. Roles that none of them would ever achieve in RL unless they are already established in  RL as professional detectives or trial lawyers. And the 'calcified' members are just as sick of it all as everyone else, but they lack the energy to bring about any change. Hardly in office, the new Committee is already one down. Let's hope that the paid mandate has accepted will be the foundation stone of that bridge. Let's see how many of the newly elected mebers will stay the course.

Thank you again, Barkeep, for everything you do, and please continue to  take good care of NPP for me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)