User:Gerda Arendt/ACE 2015

If you simply want to know how to vote go by User:Bishzilla/Vote ACE 2015.

If you want an analysis of the candidates, go by Boing! said Zebedee and Worm That Turned. (added:) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

9 seats are available to be filled, but Arbcom does not need all 9 to be filled. If you do not believe a candidate is suitable, vote oppose^[b]

If you want to know what I go for, or just compare what the candidates answered, stay here. For background - not needed but if you like - see User:Gerda Arendt/Vote ACE 2013 and User:Gerda Arendt/ACE 2014. Both questions depart from a specific situation but look for something more general, about the candidates view on fairness and visions. (Moar on my talk, look for "vision".)

Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox? ^[c]
An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ("not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's "The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."

Answers

Candidate	Answers	Date	Precious	No.	Experience
Callanecc	#1 I've primarily discounted the 'no' argument since it is textbook WP:OWN, whereas the 'yes' arguments actually explain the reasons they believe an infobox would benefit the article/readers. #2 Arbitration enforcement is designed as a sledge-hammer to force compliance. As I commented above, 'softer' remedies which focus more on training and development, for example mentoring, definitely have merit where the editors are willing to participate	11 Nov 2015			admin
Casliber	#1 The solution is to hold a broad community-wide RfC #2 leave it	17 Nov 2015	wildflowers and birds	75	arb
Drmies	#1 done #2 I have always maintained that blocks and other punishments should be applied judiciously, that the law is only written to promote a positive spirit in our work place. I would like us to talk first and, maybe, discuss them either on AN or among the Arbs. In most cases there really isn't a rush, I think, to block.	14 Nov 2015	reviewing eyes	32	admin
Gamaliel	#1 I do not believe that a small number of editors should be able to carve out a separate consensus in a corner of Wikipedia on an issue that affects a wide number of articles. #2 I am not opposed to ignoring a minor, harmless violation, but neither do I generally object to enforcing a valid ban when that ban is violated.	14 Nov 2015	discussion	676	admin
GorillaWarfare	#1 I would not close the discussion at the point—more discussion is needed to reach a clearer consensus. #2 more discussion is needed to reach a clearer consensus	14 Nov 2015			arb
Hawkeye7	#1 The argument therefore applies to articles as well as the infoboxes #2 The real problem is elaborate bans that attempt to restrain editors with red tape, rather than clear guidance on policy	8 Nov 2015	people in sports and battles	171
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz	#1 there's not enough participation to establish a consensus #2 This is idiocy, but it is also standard ArbCom practice.	9 Nov 2015
Keilana	#1 no consensus #2 adding another task to their plate will only delay timely resolution of conflicts other: I generally try to handle disputes by being polite and reasonable, and trying to achieve a consensus	14 Nov 2015	constellations and women scientists	472	admin arbcand
Kelapstick	#1 no consensus, leaning to include #2 some times no action is the best action	10 Nov 2015	mining and bacon	542	admin
Kevin Gorman	#1 suggesting the use of an advertised RfC #2 I do think that AE-the-board works quite well for many cases, and that an individual admin enforcing arb remedies also works quite well in many instances, but that there's a category of user where neither process is likely to work well.	14 Nov 2015			admin
Kirill Lokshin	#1 the determining factor is consensus (local or global), not the wishes of the principal editors per se #2 often just the lesser evil (as compared to, say, not enforcing remedies at all)	9 Nov 2015			arb
Kudpung	#1 this is not the place to ask it #2 not clear to me either what you are asking here	14 Nov 2015			admin
LFaraone	#1 At that point, I would close it as supporting the addition. There were no valid arguments against addition made. #2	9 Nov 2015			arb
Mahensingha	#1 The infobox be restored as the consensus favours restoring the infobox. #2 Users shall be banned only in rare unavoidable cases only and must be allowed to contribute otherwise.	17 Nov 2015
MarkBernstein	#1 decent metadata that would be useful for the semantic web would require clean semantics and a limited vocabulary #2 This has the advantages both of being true and of being civil - As for the general absurdity, topic bans can be made to lead to this sort of absurdity.	8 Nov 2015
NE Ent	#1 #2 empowering uninvolved admins to simply remove violations and ban further participation in a discussion with short blocks for violations would be far more efficacious	16 Nov 2015	closings	172
Opabinia regalis	#1 I don't see that this particular discussion can be reasonably closed in favor of returning the infobox to the article, although that is my personal preference, and in my view those in favor have stronger arguments. #2 Basically I would like people to do more nothing when they find the opportunity.	14 Nov 2015	biochemistry	1164	admin
Rich Farmbrough	#1 if I were closing it I would close it according to consensus #2 make sensible restrictions - where possible they should be enforced technically - descalate any sanctions	8 Nov 2015	noticing what is "soul destroying"	1015
Thryduulf	#1 I do not see that it reached a consensus #2 If enforcing a restriction would not improve Wikipedia it should not be brought to AE - but what counts as an improvement is in some cases subjective	13 Nov 2015	thinking of options	576	arb
Wildthing61476 (now RickinBaltimore)	#1 it appears that there was a majority opinion building there that an infobox for this article would benefit the readers, as it had a good deal of information in one concise location #2 One “violation” of an ArbCom ruling may not be that, it could be a misunderstanding.	12 Nov 2015
Salvidrim! withdrawn 16 Nov	#1 difficult ... to make sure my own bias isn't making this tip, from "no consensus" to "in favor" #2 most of the time, violations of remedies can be dealt with without blocks	8 Nov 2015			admin
AKS.9955 withdrawn 20 Nov	#1 if the infobox had erroneous information, then it should have been cleaned up and if the infobox had technical errors, then the infobox should have been corrected #2 find the "punitive action" a bit harsh for a passing statement	8 Nov 2015
Samtar withdrawn 21 Nov	#1 #2	9 Nov 2015
Timtrent withdrawn 23 Nov	#1 My opinion would give undue emphasis to one side or the other side of the arguments. #2 I think there is the potential to consider mentoring as part of the outcome	11 Nov 2015	"a good article"	1345

Results

Notes

^ I added an infobox to the cantata Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51 (which was shown on the Main page on Thanksgiving Day, DYK), on 4 September 2013 which was questioned (Already a dead letter?), reverted although no restriction was in place yet, and followed by the warning (mentioned in question 2) that AE "is not a fun place" (Please stop adding infoboxes to articles in contravention of your Arbcom restriction), followed by an ANI discussion. - Kafkaesque.
^ Template taken from User:Worm That Turned/ACE2015
^ When I asked the question, there was one oppose against the infobox and four supports, but the question was about the reasoning, not the numbers. The debatable statement "Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles." was not questioned by any candidate.

[1] I added an infobox to the cantata Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51 (which was shown on the Main page on Thanksgiving Day, DYK), on 4 September 2013 which was questioned (Already a dead letter?), reverted although no restriction was in place yet, and followed by the warning (mentioned in question 2) that AE "is not a fun place" (Please stop adding infoboxes to articles in contravention of your Arbcom restriction), followed by an ANI discussion. - Kafkaesque.

[2] Template taken from User:Worm That Turned/ACE2015

[3] When I asked the question, there was one oppose against the infobox and four supports, but the question was about the reasoning, not the numbers. The debatable statement "Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles." was not questioned by any candidate.

[a]

[b]

[c]