User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011
 |
|
Criteria
[edit]Well not exactly, because I'm lazy, but you can probably deduce them from here.
- On Editing
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
- On Administration
JzG was actually a role model for me when I started here, because he had a real knack for seeing through bullshit and grasping the essence of a dispute...I can think of a number of other admins who used to work that way - that is, WP:CIV doesn't mean you have to endlessly tolerate obvious bullshit. Those people are all completely burnt out, if they're still here at all. And they've been replaced by people who are equally high-handed, but without the saving grace of underlying clue - the worst of both worlds. At some point, "the community" made a decision that rudeness was a greater threat to the project than blatantly partisan, agenda-driven, or batshit-crazy editors. Honestly, if you're capable of staying superficially civil (emphasis on "superficially"), avoiding edit-warring, and avoiding sockpuppetry, you can basically stay here indefinitely pushing whatever nonsensical, pernicious crap you choose. The end result is that we constantly hemorrhage good editors when they burn out, but the real bad apples stay with us forever.
— User:MastCell, 04:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
My primary criticism of the committee is that it is generally so focused on our conduct policies that it ends up leaving the actual encyclopedia behind. This is a direct consequence of the committee's refusal to adjudicate content disputes combined with the lack of any other available form of binding content dispute resolution. The model in use seems to be that if we keep editors in line with our conduct policies, the content will fall into place. This is absolutely not the case. The idea seems to be based on the entirely false notion that editors with conduct issues and those who advocate inappropriate content on Wikipedia are the same people. Absolutely not so. Wikipedia has many editors highly devoted to neutrality and verifiability who, alas, are also prone to behavioural lapses (often during the course of their attempts to improve or maintain the encyclopedia's neutrality or verifiability), and many highly civil POV pushers. The effect of this conduct-only focus of arbitration is to sanction editors advocating neutrality as harshly, nearly as harshly, or even more harshly than POV-pushers. As an example: two editors enter a long-term edit war over a matter. The one seeking push a POV is exceedingly civil, while the other, who seeks to enforce neutrality and verifiability, lashes out with four-letter words from time to time. In an arbitration case, who will be sanctioned more harshly? That's right: the second, because he violated our conduct policies more. That this is completely wrong and that an editor who compromises the integrity of our articles should always receive more severe sanctions than one who violates conduct policies while seeking to uphold content policies is abundantly clear for both practical and principled reasons, but this is not how our ArbCom is set up. Even in the case that both editors in the dispute are about equally civil and both receive similar sanctions, we have still sanctioned an editor trying to enforce our content policies. Such a person is likely to be discouraged from advocating neutrality in contentious areas in the future when they see that POV-pushers and neutrality advocates are treated exactly the same by the committee (indeed, they're likely to say "screw this" and leave the project completely).
Wikipedia is singularly ill-adapted to deal with nationalist troublemaking. Overmuch of the mentality of the Arbitration Committee, who will not rule on content, has filtered down to the administrative corps. Living-persons issues apart, most admins are too scared to block for POV pushing, even though neutrality is supposed to be our most important principle. Nor are such blocks readily endorsed, no matter how justified, largely because the majority of those expressing an opinion are not familiar with the subject matter, and either cannot or will not properly check the issues concerned. As a result, admins are unable to deal with pure POV-pushing, and can only address the other symptoms of the nationalist disease. Typically the nationalist troll does, in fact, infringe user conduct rules, but this cannot be universally relied upon. Even if he does, the nationalist cannot be relied upon to violate the user conduct regulations to the extent that he can be removed permanently.
- On Governance
I've always believed that the WMF need to grow a pair and enforce a governance model on Wikipedia. If the American Revolution had been conducted by RFC, the Continental Congress would still be bickering over what color the flag should be and Thomas Jefferson would have been blocked for incivility to King George.
— User:Iridescent, 00:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- On Biographies of Living Persons
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the living people about whom we write. There is a deadline for them: it is the moment that Google puts our article about them in their top-5 results. That is something that was never contemplated at the time that Wikipedia was created. We must be responsive to changes in circumstances; this is about as big a change as can be. This is part of Wikipedia maturing and becoming a responsible citizen of the information world; when we were small and unnoticed, we had almost no impact on the life of an article subject. Now, what is published in our pages can (and sometimes does) cause long-lasting harm. Why do you think Google now crawls our articles incessantly to ensure it reflects the most current version of a page? We are no longer a little upstart in a distant corner of the Internet: we are now a top-10 website whose words, whether they should be or not, are taken as relatively accurate if not entirely authoritative. Not a day goes by that someone being interviewed on radio or television isn't confronted with a question that starts "I looked up your Wikipedia entry and it says..." The failure of individuals to recognise this collective responsibility to get things right about real people does more to harm the reputation and credibility of this project than any other error that is made.
— User:Risker, 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly could have been handled with less dramah, but the deletions did have a sound basis in policy. Let's not get so carried away with "procedure" that we miss the big picture here - the community needs to have a way to deal with articles of this type that doesn't involve deciding its Somebody Else's Problem.
— User:Shell Kinney, 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
My votes
[edit]Currently Running
[edit]| User | Statement & Questions | Rights[1] | Edits[2] | Since | Preliminary notes | Opinion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGK • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,CU,OS | 30,521 | 2006-02-27 | I notice that Elonka has expressed some doubts with regards to his article writing, which I have not investigated in great depth. Nonetheless, I think this is a more minor concern that it otherwise might be. To me, article writing is a proxy for "does this user understand what it is like for a standard, policy-abiding editor who happens to get caught up in an editing dispute". My reading of AGK's writing is that he does understand. He may not have the most experience in disputes or article writing or be the most active, but that is OK. The rest of his answers seem quite reasonable, and in-line with what I mostly believe. As such, I am happy to support. |  Support
| |
| Coren • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,CU,OS,Arb | 16,556 | 2003-05-27 | A hard decision. On the one hand, I feel that he hasn't lost the plot, but on the other, he is fairly inactive (other guides say out of touch; I don't know if I would go that far, but it's still a concern). He seems to be focusing on very meta-issues these days. That's fine, but some of the primary responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee are to resolve disputes and hear appeals—I'm not sure how much quality work he has put into either in his previous term. I shall cast a neutral ballot. |  No Vote
| |
| Courcelles • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,CU,OS | 206,036 | 2006-09-17 | Hasn't answered all my questions yet, but I was pretty sure that I was going to support him regardless. Right idea on BLP and administration (see A1 and A3 to my core questions). Answer to general question #7 is nice to see; I hope he will have to time to work on that during his tenure. Some minor concerns (Answer to Rschen7754's Q4 seems a bit too idealized to actually work in practice, for example), but overall, he seems to be a fine candidate. | Support
| |
| DeltaQuad • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
ex-A,OTRS | 15,984 | 2007-11-07 | Sven Manguard has a short summary of issues that I knew about but was not involved with. I share many of his concerns, but perhaps not to the same extent—I believe that DeltaQuad has learned somewhat from the matter. I also have several additional concerns. It is not clear to me that DeltaQuad truly has a grasp on the problems with BLPs (my core A2), has a good understanding on the problems with serious editing disputes that reach ArbCom (by the time it reaches ArbCom, it has gone beyond "review the sources") (my core A3, A4), or has an understanding of why we ethically need strong policies for BLP as well as medicine, despite our disclaimers (my additional A2). I believe that understanding the underlying nature of the disputes that come before ArbCom is very important for any potential Arbitrator. I don't see that DeltaQuad has that understanding, and so must oppose. |
 Oppose
| |
| Eluchil404 • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A | 10,768 | 2006-03-02 | Haven't heard of him much, and he seems fairly inactive. Looking over his answers to my questions though, one thing that immediately jumped out at me was his reply to my core Q3, where he seems to take an excessively lenient approach to POV pushers; this was echoed elsewhere in his guide. Perhaps one reason for this is that he seems to be more of a wikignome than anything else, which I think can be an issue for resolving disputes. On the other hand, I am glad to see that he seems to place great weight in making sure that decisions are swift, which is important, and as one voice among fifteen, his leniency might not be the end of the world The candidate field is not especially strong this year, so I am putting my vote down as neutral instead of weak oppose. | No Vote
| |
| Geni • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,OTRS | 27,643 | 2004-03-30 | Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 4 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 3 both summarize some of the pre-2009 issues fairly well. I can't see any evidence of change since then from Geni's contributions, and the answers to the questions are either not well-thought out or are so short as to be completely useless. | Oppose
| |
| Hersfold • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,CU,OS,ex-Arb | 33,277 | 2006-12-21 | I'm concerned that he might not entirely understand the root causes of disputes. The answers to my core questions 2&3 were not that spectacular—he seemed to recognize that there was somewhat of an issue with disruptive editors but did not entirely understand how a lone disruptive editor, let alone multiple of them, could make editing hell for a neutral, policy-abiding editor (like me, of course). The answer to my optional question 2 was also very dissappointing (if you read this Hersfold, I advise you to drop MastCell a line at some point). But in general, I have found Hersfold to be a fairly reasonable editor and administrator, and think he would do an OK job. | Support
| |
| Hot_Stop • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
None | 831 | 2011-04-11 | There is something to be said for having "outsiders" and non-administrators on the Committee. My expectation though is that they are experienced editors. | Oppose
| |
| Jclemens • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb, | 32,210 | 2006-08-24 | His lone vote regarding Orangemarlin on the currently open Abortion case is ridiculous, as a number of other guides have mentioned. The time that that case took to even get a proposed decision up is something else. I was involved with the case, so what should have happened appears obvious to me, but it really should have taken two or three weeks tops, not six or eight. See also Heim's concern about his "lame duck" comment and Wizardman's comments on general harshness (related). Other times, I have seen Jclemens' edits and thought to myself "this is focusing far too much on the letter of the rules as opposed to the spirit of the policy"; these include [1] and [2]. Was also not impressed by this. |
Oppose
| |
| Kirill_Lokshin • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,CU,OS,Arb | 70,451 | 2005-06-08 | Kirill might be a good Arbitrator when it comes to analyzing cases and coming up with a fair decision. To be honest, I can't really remember all too well. But I have heard that such is the case from multiple Arbitrators who served with Kirill, so I shall take their word for it. Nonetheless, there is no way I feel comfortable supporting. Readers of this guide might be familiar with the ArbCom mailing list leaks this past summer. I am not going to post these or link to them; however, it should not be difficult for interested readers to find them. Reading through the emails there, I found that he was far too quick to jump to conclusions and more interested in dealing with wiki-political issues than actual tangible harms. As a tangent to that last point, I remember that Kirill was a key member in getting Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development off the ground. That isn't a good thing, in my book.
|
Oppose
| |
| Kww • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A | 55,932 | 2007-01-09 | Starting off with "BLP is overused as an excuse" as the primary policy statement in his opening statement isn't exactly my cup of tea. But the answers to the non-BLP questions seem pretty good, if a little abbreviated. His answer to my first question was atrocious, but his very un-diplomatic answer to Q3 hit the essentials. He's done decent work at WP:SPI in my recollection. I shall cast a neutral vote. | No Vote
| |
| Panyd • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,OTRS | 9,044 | 2007-10-13 | I seem to be agreeing with Wizardman quite a lot on this one, so I am going to quote him here:
I was somewhat disappointed with the answer to my core question 3. There are certainly quite a number of editors who are clearly a net negative to the project, and if it is difficult for an editor to identify who those editors are, it will make life on ArbCom extremely difficult. That and SandyGeorgia's concerns are enough to tip me over to oppose. Extensive content writing or dispute resolution experience might change my mind if she ran again in the future. |
Oppose
| |
| NWA.Rep • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
None | 4,289 | 2006-02-12 | Perhaps it's because I am part of the establishment, but somehow I don't have much faith in candidates with four thousand edits coming back after three years and promising a "revolution". Seeing how his definition of "admin abuse" seems to consist of "The user prevented me from adding 'producer noted for her large, natural breasts' instead of just 'producer'"[3], I don't really think this is the kind of editor we need on ArbCom. | Oppose
| |
| SilkTork • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A | 51,864 | 2006-01-12 | SilkTork has always struck me as a reasonable editor, both in the more bureaucratic areas of Wikipedia (AFD, DRV), and the few times I have run across him in articlespace. I am worried that he might not be the most active Arbitrator, as he is taking his sweet time with the questions. But his answers are quite good on the whole. Will vote to support. | Support
| |
| Risker • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb | 18,805 | 2005-12-27 | Risker is the member of the Arbitration Committee I have had pleasure of speaking to the most these past few years (mostly off-wiki). She has been a fairly decent one, I think, but so much has happened during her three year term that I need to take a further step back to evaluate it all. William M. Connolley brings up the original ARBCC proposed decision, which was a disaster, but the part of that draft that I thought to be the worst (individual editors) was largely not her doing. Overall, I think that she did a fair job during her three year term. I have disagreed with her quite a bit, and probably will do so many a time if she is elected again, but I think she will do a fair job if she were elected again. Come to think about it, you can basically take my rationale for Roger below and copy it in this cell; it applies to Risker just as well. |
Support
| |
| Roger_Davies • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,CU,OS,Arb | 29,341 | 2005-09-17 | Can't really make up my mind. There is a lot that's happened during Roger's term, both good and bad. Overall, I think he balances out to "could have been worse". He seems to have some ideas for reform, which would be interesting to see be played out over the next two years—not too many other editors have put up anything about that. Roger has been on the Committee for three full years now. I think it would be nice to see new blood on the Committee. I don't feel entirely comfortable supporting, but I think I shall anyway. I think that I would have preferred that he let his term expire and then run again in December 2012. But there is not a great field this year and I think Roger would do an OK job, so I shall support. |
Support
| |
| Worm_That_Turned • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,OTRS | 8,905 | 2008-07-13 | A relatively new administrator (RfA July 2011), I'm not sure if Worm is ready for ArbCom yet. His candidacy reminds me quite a lot of another newly appointed administrator's candidacy last year. I think there is a clear difference between the two, but I am struggling to articulate it. His answers to the questions were mostly reasonable-ish though, so I don't entirely feel the need to oppose. My final opinion is somewhere between weak support and neutral, with my actual cast vote being a neutral. | No Vote |
Withdrawn
[edit]This was the way my comments stood at the time the candidate withdrew.
| User/Talk/Contribs | Statement & Questions | Rights | Edits | Since | My thoughts | Intended vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxim • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
A,B | 30,592 | 2007-02-10 | — |  Undecided |
Notes
[edit]- Positions
- Arb=Current Arbitrator
- ex-Arb=Former Arbitrator
- OTRS=Have access to OTRS for purposes other than checkuser or oversight
- Admin-level-or-higher rights
- A=Administrator
- B=Bureaucrat
- CU=Checkuser (requires identification to WMF)
- OS=Oversighter (requires identification to WMF)
- S=Steward (requires identification to WMF, no other non en:wp rights will be shown)
- "None" refers to no admin-level-or-high rights