User:SilkTork/ArbNotes 2017
Preamble
[edit]ArbCom is a committee which resolves difficult disputes, and deals with matters detailed here. It has limited scope for doing harm to the project, so voting is less stringent than for becoming an admin, steward or bureaucrat - essentially, if you put your name forward, you have a better than 50% chance of being elected; however, being part of the Committee is seen as a Big Deal, and for some current and ex members of the community, especially those who either get into or deal with disputes, ArbCom is of significant interest. The majority of the community, thankfully, get along without ArbCom, and many may not even be aware of it.
What is required of a committee member (or "Arb") to deal with the varying aspects of the role is a good understanding of the project, tact and diplomacy, a collaborative mindset, discretion, decisiveness, patience, moral courage, communication skills, and organisational skills. Not everyone will have all of these, but the more someone has, the better. What is helpful in any committee is for members to have a range of experiences and interests and opinions, and to be able to share their varying experiences, interests and opinions in a helpful and collaborative manner. Having a committee composed fairly equally of experienced and new members is also of benefit.
The more I look at the candidates this year, the more I am thinking that this is the weakest selection we've had. There are four experienced ArbCom members, Opabinia regalis, Callanecc, Worm That Turned, and Mailer diablo. These will almost certainly, especially given the circumstances, retake their seats on the committee; however, two of those, Worm That Turned, and Mailer diablo, are questionable candidates given their recent lack of activity, and Worm is running on a dubious non-admin platform that may alienate people.
There has been growing interest in recent years in non-admins nominating themselves. The first time I can recall this happening was when User:Giano stepped forward in 2007. (For the record, I supported). We have five non-admins this year - one of whom, Worm, is an admin, but put his tools in the cupboard for safekeeping while he was away from the project, and he can pick them up tomorrow just by asking, so effectively is an admin. Another one, Rambling Man, was an admin but was desysopped/resigned under a cloud. Of the nine remaining admin candidates, one, Sarek, resigned after he came close to being desysopped, but gained back the tools on the second time of asking; another, Alex Shih, gained his tools in 2007, then two months later virtually vanished for a decade, only returning recently to hand out lots of blocks. Another, Mailer, also has CU and OS tools, and is a former Arb, but his activity level has been very low. It's not clear, this year, that admin status counts for much if people are using it as a quick guide to the user being committed and trustworthy.
Candidates
[edit]| Candidate | Notes | Potential | Support | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) | Experienced. My notes in 2015: "Opabinia regalis has shown good judgement and knowledge of Wikipedia. She has had two effective periods on Wikipedia, and in both she successfully passed a RfA. She has a lot of support, though there are some misgivings about overall level of experience in relation to Committee duties. That she is female pleases some people, though her judgement and skills are enough for others....Very likely. Will possibly finish in the top half."
Elected on 74% - 2nd |
Highly likely | Full Support | |||
| Callanecc (talk · contribs) | Experienced. My notes in 2015: "Already holds advanced permissions, and has knowledge of ArbCom proceedings. Appears to be a career Wikipedia administrator rather than a Wikipedia content builder, and that carries with it the plus points of dedication to the role, but concerns of a lack of perspective of the central purpose of the project. There are questions around judgement, and the ability to see the bigger picture....Has the credentials, so is a strong contender." Result:
Elected on 68% - 5th |
Likely | Support | |||
| BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) | BU has been around for three years, picking up admin tools last year, and becoming a very active admin. He also has CheckUser, and has written several Good Articles. His answers to the questions are good. | Very likely. Probably the best candidate who has not previously been an Arb. | Support
| |||
| Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) | Experienced. I worked on ArbCom with Worm and trust his judgement. I don't like the non-admin stance he's taken because it's misleading and unhelpful, especially given that there is a genuine non-admin, SMcCandlish, who - given the circumstances - actually has a chance of being elected the first non-admin Arb. Indeed, if the community really want to see a non-admin Arb, then the votes should go to SMcCandlish, and Worm should do the decent thing and reclaim his tools so he doesn't cloud the water. | Likely - though the non-admin stance may shake off some support | Support | |||
| SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) | SMcCandlish has been around a while and knows the ropes. He's had two RfAs (one and two) - I opposed the second on the grounds that while SMcCandlish was willing to engage in discussions, he was too focused on persuading others of his views rather than in seeking consensus. In his answers to the questions he is thoughtful and plausible. I am inclining toward the "real person" that is Stanton McCandlish, though need to ponder more.
|
For SMcCandlish to be elected, he would need, as a non-admin, to get more votes from the community than three of the ten admins (lets count Worm as an admin, regardless of his non-admin stand, as that is what he actually is). We've never had a non-admin as an Arb, but for some SMcCandlish's argumentative history may put them off voting for him over a safer pair of hands. And which three admins would get less votes? Worm because he's standing on a non-admin ticket? That would be an irony wouldn't it? RickinBaltimore or BU Rob13 because they are too new, and lack rounded experience? Mailer because of his lack of activity for so long? Hmmm. After looking at Alex Shih's low level of activity, I think SMcCandlish will get more votes. I think when it comes down to it, people see the admin tag as an indication of experience and trust. In Alex Shih's case he gained the admin tag over a decade OK, and then virtually vanished until this year. SMcCandlish, meanwhile, has been working away at building the encyclopedia. If Alex Shih gets more votes than SMcCandlish simply because he's an admin and SMcCandlish isn't, then we'll know for certain we have a prejudice problem that needs addressing. | I've veered around like a supermarket trolley for a few days, but I'm coming down in support | |||
| KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs) | Experienced user. I felt at first that she was a bit superficial, and was not looking deeply enough at issues. But on the whole she seems fine. I would, to be honest, prefer someone with both more insight and experience, but given the selection we've got, she'll do. | Likely | Support | |||
| Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) | Experience, but not recent. For several years now Mailer has occasionally (roughly monthly, but with some gaps) used his admin, checkuser, and oversight tools, so he has kept in touch with Wikipedia, and helped out. But his commitment otherwise has been fairly minimal. And when I was in ArbCom, though I didn't get involved in decisions related to granting or removing Oversight or CheckUser permissions, I was aware of the discussions around those permissions, and the concerns that some long term users were holding onto these permissions by using them occasionally, and thus meeting the criteria, but that they were not fully engaged with the community or fully up to date with contemporary practises. I don't think Mailer would have fallen into that category, as he seems to be using the tools reasonably often, but I think there might be some concern that he does seem to come in now and again just to do a user check, and then hand out blocks. At the same time, I am aware that my own contributions to the community have diminished over the years, and I am not as fully engaged with the community as I was several years ago, but I do occasionally use my admin tooks. I can see where Mailer still wants to help out on the community, and has the knowledge, experience and confidence to do checks, and issues blocks - I think that's OK. I also think that, with notable exceptions, such as Cas Liber, most users who join the committee do so when their energy (or enthusiasm or interest) for article writing has diminished, but they still want to help out, so moving onto ArbCom is appropriate - using the knowledge of the community and Wikipedia process they have gained over the years of active, engaged activity. But I am also aware of a long term user who had been quiet for some years, then came back and joined ArbCom while I was there, and found that things had changed a lot since his day, and that he was slightly out of touch, so resigned after a short period. So there is this slight doubt around Mailer. |
Likely. Has been an Arb. Currently holds advanced tools which he does employ on a regular basis. Concerns about lack of activity and involvement will be small compared to the advantage he brings with experience and knowledge, and that there are not really enough viable candidates for the eight vacant places. If he doesn't get in, I doubt if it'll be because eight others got more votes, but would be more likely that he didn't get 50% positive votes - and that seems unlikely. | Possibly yes | |||
| RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) | Has grown in experience since 2015. My notes in 2015 (as User:Wildthing61476): "Has been around a while (went through an unsuccessful RfA in 2007), and does a lot of janitor work. Is certainly on the road to being an admin candidate, though needs more experience of content building, collaborative work, dispute resolution, and deciding consensus. Has only recently returned from nearly three years absence, so unlikely to pass a RFA for another six months....Highly unlikely."
Not elected on 37% Since then he has become an admin mainly on his strength as a vandal fighter. |
Possible. People like vandal fighters. | Probably not, as I don't think he has yet enough rounded experience, and being on the committee is about more than vandal fighting.
| |||
| Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) | As I work my way through these candidates, the theme of lack of recent activity and experience just gets bigger. Premeditated joined in 2003, was quietly active, nothing much, but slow and steady, becoming an admin in 2004, then in 2008 activity almost stopped. A modest return for six months in 2012, and then nothing again until January this year. Essentially, Premeditated has just under a year's relevant experience.
|
In normal circumstances not a hope, but with so few viable candidates, she may well get in. | Neutral leaning support. I like the answers to the questions.
| |||
| Alex Shih (talk · contribs) | Alex Shih became an admin in 2007: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AQu01rius. Shortly after that his involvement with Wikipedia dropped right off: [1]. He returned just four months ago (seriously). His absence is explained in response to Carrite's question. His answers to questions in general are weak, and reveal his lack of experience, and lack of insight. He is well meaning, and doesn't look harmful. But I can't see him as being an asset to the committee until he has gained some more real experience.
|
Unlikely due to low level of activity, and lack of experience. | Oppose - lack of experience | |||
| The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) |
Experienced. Chequered history.
|
Interesting. I think some support votes would be pointy or negative, along the lines of "Hasten the day", or at least anti-ArbCom. Others, however, would likely support because they feel Wikipedia is about writing articles, and those who do that, such as The Rambling Man, should be encouraged and protected. Some may see him as the champion of the quality article writer - a potential defender of the True Wiki. However, I think the bulk of users will see The Rambling Man as too risky and problematic and divisive to be useful on the committee. And that concerns and arguments regarding vested contributors (particularly long term high quality contributors who are abrasive and uncivil with others) may create more drama rather than less, as this is an unresolved issue, and may remain so for the whole life of Wikipedia. | I wouldn't support, as I don't think The Rambling Man would be helpful - and he possibly wouldn't last. Would I oppose? Possibly. I'll see how things look after reviewing everyone.
| |||
| Sir Joseph (talk · contribs) | We shouldn't dismiss a candidate simply because they are not an admin. We shouldn't dismiss a candidate simply because they've had blocks in the past. We shouldn't dismiss a candidate simply because they don't build content (Sir Joseph's article contributions are mostly reverts). We shouldn't dismiss a candidate because they are argumentative. We shouldn't dismiss a candidate because they seem to have given up their nomination, and haven't responded to questions for two days, though continuing to engage in arguments on article talkpages. We should look at what positives they have contributed to the project, and the evidence they provide for being able to do the role of Arb. Sir Joseph says "I am not terribly familiar with all of the tools an admin uses." By that admission, he would not understand when an admin abuses those tools and contribute meaningfully to cases involving admins. He says "A good chunk of my editing has been in contentious areas and blocks are sometimes the cost of editing in those areas." ArbCom cases are often about editing on contentious areas - someone who feels that getting blocked for inappropriate editing in such areas is to be expected, doesn't sound like they have the appropriate understanding of what we expect of all our editors. A user in good standing is one who can go into a contentious area and edit well, leading by example, and sorting out conflicts. That's the sort of user we want on ArbCom, not someone who can't even tell the difference between appropriate and inappropriate, let alone lead by example or sort out disputes. Given Sir Joseph's lack of credentials, and lack of evidence of appropriate experience or personal skills or insights to balance out those lack of credentials, this is not a good nomination. If Sir Joseph did some good content work, got involved in dispute resolution, stopped getting into arguments, and became an admin, he might stand a chance in the future. Let's not rule anyone out.
|
Very unlikely | Oppose |
Withdrawn
[edit]| Withdrawn Candidate | Notes | Potential | Support |
|---|---|---|---|
Has withdrawn. Explains on his talkpage that answering the questions was already demanding enough on his time, so he doubted if he had the time to spare to do the job justice. |
| ||
Defiant and difficult to the end, he refused to withdraw his candidacy as "a matter of principle". |
My selection
[edit]Support
[edit]- Opabinia regalis
- Callanecc
- BU Rob13
- SMcCandlish
- Worm That Turned
- KrakatoaKatie
Probably support
[edit]- Mailer diablo
- Premeditated Chaos
Probably neutral
[edit]- RickinBaltimore
Probably oppose
[edit]- The Rambling Man
Oppose
[edit]- Alex Shih
- Sir Joseph
Probable finishing order
[edit]- Opabinia regalis
- Callanecc
- BU Rob13
- Mailer diablo
- Worm That Turned
- KrakatoaKatie
- RickinBaltimore
- The Rambling Man
- Premeditated Chaos
- SMcCandlish
- Alex Shih
- Sir Joseph
Voter guides
[edit] | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |