Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Z1720
|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
SN 54129[edit]
Interesting candidature, but if there was a "Too soon" available for Arbcomistas, it might apply here. As I see it, unfortunately, Z1720 has been an active editor since August 2020, and then ran a successful candidature for admin a year later. And now a run at a seat. The problem, I think, is that judging whether an editor is fit to be an admin is one set of questions, based primarily on their behavior as an editor. This is a very different situation in that now it is Z1720's activity as an administrator that is examined. There are no black marks at all, by the way!—but this is basically because there are too few actions to assess. Excepting 44 revdels, they've blocked one editor, reblocked three and unblocked seven over the year. And little or no participation in the discussion boards—ANEW, AFD, AIV or AE, for example, where activity isn't always logged but the ability to discuss things while under a microscope and knowing that, whatever their decision, someone's going home empty-handed. Mind you, they make a lot of positive contributions at FAC, and I don't think I've ever disagreed with them on anything substantial, so there is that. ——Serial 00:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know, I think the FAC discussions are plenty detailed and under a microscope. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129, a good explanation for the lack of logged admin actions is that most of Z1720's admin work is at WP:DYK which doesn't involve blocking, deleting etc. I've also seen them decline unblock requests occasionally as well. #prodraxis connect 21:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- DYK has about the same heat ratio as FAC, and the stats are probably similar. Discussions of low heat, minimal participation on a local project != anything that can be expected at a case request. E.g. the latest WT:FAC thread mentioned above has rumbled quietly on for 4 days with 6X that no. of participants. (Incidentally, Z's participation on that page is running at around 50 edits over the last 3 years.) A case request could get 20 often emotionally charged comments in the first 20 minutes.Barkeep does not mean to but he does his colleagues a disservice. One of them, indeed, in Another Place, recently noted that non-arbs
see the modern caseload is maybe 10 cases a year, and it doesn't look like there's all thut much work. There is. More than you think. It literally never ends, there's something else every single day... It's a LOT of email
. DYK / FAC are not training schemes for a cauldron where everyone on fucking Reddit wants to know your name. I bet a lot of active arbs would look back on local projects as a fond childhood memory. Basically, someone who doesn't want the confrontation neither needs nor wants to be an arb. All this, by the way, is nonobstante their primary role as a content creator; I've dabbled in article writing myself, and they are no mean achiever. It us clearly their skill, their forte, their passion. As the logs indicate. ——Serial 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)- I think I just have a more expansive vision of what kind of experiences (compared to attributes such as good judgement) can be helpful to making someone a good arb. My criteria would basically boil down to:
- Has proven themselves in a high stakes environment. This can be ANI, it can be AE, but can also be closing really fraught deletion discusisons, or participating in certain reviewed content decisions
- Wants to do it
- Has the time
- Will keep at it even when the glamour wears off
- For 4 I like someone who has "owned" a wiki process like Moneytree did with CCI as an example from last year's election. This commitment to sticking with it will also be the basis for a question I plan to ask all candidates this year. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I share a relatively expansive view of what counts as good experience for the Committee. More generally, one of the biggest lessons I've learned — and it's a cliche but it's more true than I expected — is that beyond a certain level of familiarity and competence that all arbs need, a real diversity of experience is quite helpful on the Committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think I just have a more expansive vision of what kind of experiences (compared to attributes such as good judgement) can be helpful to making someone a good arb. My criteria would basically boil down to:
Not sure I've wholly changed my mind; I am still concerned by the lack of proof of resilience under pressure, etc., and a bit more experience in the admin role (to reiterate: I simply don't understand why someone who doesn't want to be an admin would want to be on arbcom; but maybe that's just me). However, I'm very impressed by their answer to Q8. It's healthy to see someone willing to accept that 'peace' does not mean an infobox everywhere. Since many admins steer clear of the area, it's actually good to hear that one might get involved and apportion blame to where it is so often ignored. ——Serial 20:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)