User:Jd2718/jd2718 ArbCom notes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee

Having acctively participated in the ArbCom elections, I now have a personal interest in following the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee. What good choices Wikipedians seem to have made! The new members seem to be active (but that is to be expected of new members). They also seem to be thoughtful, independent thinkers. And there is a general tilt towards editors, towards being an editor-friendly committee. This is quite positive. But this is also a divided ArbCom, that may be rejecting many contentious cases by narrow margins (a new voting scheme is likely, but probably won't change that). But some of the worst decisions of the last committee seem unlikely to be repeated. This might be a tense year. Jd2718 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Elections

I finally started reading Wiki policies and guidelines and those sorts of things this Fall, and then I saw the notice about elections for the Arbitration Committee. I started to read: candidate statements; questions, answers; arbitrations (Requests for Arbitration or RfAs). I am learning: to look at users' talk pages, to review contributions to articles; about policies, guidelines, wikihistory; about mediation, and about dispute resolution, and about various odd topics here and there (imagine reading encyclopedia entries to learn about authors). It is all, of course, too much to take in at once. But it is an interesting way to start, all the same.

So I have decided that I will prepare myself to cast informed votes in the ArbCom elections 12/4/06 - 12/18/06. This will be a wiki-self-education project for me. I have been figuring things out. (These comments were written late October, 2006, and revised Jd2718 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) )

[edit] Done

Five of my six favorites got 3 year terms. Jpgordon, Uninvited Company, Kirill Lokshin, Paul August, and Flcelloguy. FloNight and Blnguyen got two year terms. There is no expansion.

Geogre is editing policy positions and advisories on subtalk pages, and getting positive feedback

Kelly Martin started a self-indulgent RfC, refused to drop out (while racking up what must be a record number of oppose votes), disappeared, then reappeared with a new name.

I know a lot more then two months ago, and will summarize some on another page, another day.

1. Do whatever you want off-wiki, but all admin work must be discussed openly, on-wiki 2. Assume as much bad faith as you want in your heart, but publicly stick with AGF. 3. There have to be times (conduct, not content) where you can be allowed to ditch #2. 4. There are editors with admin-tool problems, and editors with short-fuse problems, and editors with content problems, and the groups don't overlap much.

I'll flesh this and some other stuff out, later.



[edit] Nearly Done

[edit] Almost halfway done 12/10/2006

(Note, this section was written later than most of the further down sections)

  • Most of the early trends held up.
    • Paul August, Kirill Lokshin and Flcelloguy are pushing towards 200 support votes each, with very little opposition. UninvitedCompany has over 200 supports, but nearly 30 'oppose's.
    • UninvitedCompany, Geogre, and Kelly Martin were receiving the most total votes when I first wrote. Blnguyen now has a similar number, and Can't sleep, clown will eat me is by far outpacing all other candidates, with nearly 300 votes. Kelly Martin's oppose percentage remains very high, with over 200 oppose votes. Can't sleep has been steady at 75% (note, 70 oppose votes), and Geogre is still hovering over 60%.
    • FloNight and Jpgordon continue to do well (84 and 88% support, respectively) with more overall votes (and supports) to FloNight.
    • Can't sleep's continuing large negative vote (one fourth of total) is largely related to his service being concentrated on vandal-fighting. (I agree. Valuable member of the community; not a good ArbCom choice). Geogre's high negatives were discussed below, but his high supports have also continued. I continue to believe that the group of him, UninvitedCompany, Flcelloguy, Kirill Lokshin, and Paul August would have been the ideal 5 to be selected (were the number to have been 5)
    • Radiant!, Freakofnurture, Voice of All, and MONGO dropped out. MONGO has deleted his userpage and left Wikipedia. Radiant! and Voice of All had 68% support and 74% support, respectively, and would not have likely been chosen, if there were 5 Arbitrators to be selected.
    • Dozens of editors have participated in an RfC for Kelly Martin, to help her decide why editors don't like her. She spammed the list of people who voted 'oppose.' The RfC is self-indulgent (there were already explanations attached to most of the oppose votes), insulting (most editors had reasons based on attitudes, statments, or past behaviors for voting oppose, not on petty likes or dislikes), and irregular (she is still a candidate for ArbCom). Folks, I am dissapointed. Her candidacy is defeated, her ability to bully or threaten or insult is diminished. Let her edit. But why indulge this RfC? Wikipedia is not friendster; wikipedia is not therapy.
    • Jimbo pointed out that one arbitrator is resigning, Mindspillage which opens up a 6th seat, plus that it might be time to expand ArbCom (3 more seats?). This created a flurry of communication about the candidates who left (since he encouraged them to come back) what rules would apply, etc. Assuming no one reenters, candidates with 60% - 75% support might come into play, including Alex Bakharev, Samuel Blanning and Will Beback.
    • I am happy with most of my votes. I am rethinking (on advice of a respected editor) my oppose for Alex Bakharev. Also considering supporting Samuel Blanning, but more likely will not comment on his page. My vote for Improv, in hindsight, was not well considered (I wrote strong, I should have written weak) but I will not edit that. And I like that only one editor I opposed is likely to be chosen, and that that one editor is a good, hard-working Wikipedian at that. Jd2718 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Early Results 12/05/2006

(Note, this section was written later than most of the further down sections)

I cast votes for most candidates the first day of voting, many within the first hour. As the returns accumulate, there are several developments and several patterns are emerging:

  • UninvitedCompany, Geogre, and Kelly Martin are receiving far and away the most votes.
  • I don't know the timing of the voting last time, but this time looks heavier.
  • Several candidates are receiving ovewhelming support: Paul August got his first vote opposed after over 100 supporting votes. Kirill Lokshin and Flcelloguy have received similar support. UninvitedCompany has a few more opposes, but a third more support than anyone else at this point. If 5 candidates are to be chosen, those 4 would seem to be registering overwhelming community support.
  • Three more candidates are enjoying very strong support: FloNight, Jpgordon, and Blnguyen. Jpgordon has only 4 oppose votes, but is lagging in support. I suppose that this might be due to some civility questions raised by his conduct a year ago. (For the record, I think that he has dealt with questions well, but the vote probably reflects some hesitation by part of the community). FloNight is currently an ArbCom clerk with a record of fairness. She has garnered more support (over 100 votes) but a smattering of opposition (including me, about too much time on ArbCom, see endorsements, below). Blnguyen has a bit more support and a bit more opposition. His contributions lean more heavily on editing, and one criticism has been that the areas he edits are quiet. He contests this. (I made up my mind soon after voting started to support Blnguyen).
  • Two candidates have dropped out: Doc glasgow, who I had not formed an opinion of, and JzG. I was leaning towards supporting JzG, but had some doubts about his abrasiveness. Apparently the community shared these. While he was over the 50% level needed to be considered for ArbCom, there was significant, strong opposition.
  • Of the candidates I supported, the community is strongly disagreeing with only one: Improv. Perhaps I missed something.
  • I strongly supported (and still support) Geogre, and the community is voting heavily both for and against him (over 60% in favor). From comments, it looks like he increased his overall vote total by addressing someone else's candidacy Kelly Martin, but especially his "oppose" total. He may have shifted votes from "support" to "oppose." Folks, it looks to me as if he were rising in defense of the community as a whole, but this place is very sensitive to issues of tone, and while he will likely still meet the 50% threshhold, the large opposed vote may keep him off ArbCom.
  • Of the candidates I opposed, the community is supporting Radiant and Can't sleep, clown will eat me, but with significant opposed votes. FloNight has had little other opposition, and I have been contacted by several editors, asking me to explain my vote (which I have done in several places, including below). I feel strongly about not forming permanent categories of users, and think that putting a Clerk onto ArbCom is a step in that direction. At the same time, I have absolutely nothing negative to say about FloNight, and quite a bit positive. Were she not currently a clerk, I would have voted for her without hesitation.
  • I wonder if the size of the tranches won't be increased to 6. That would mean chosing 8 candidates, and there might be enough with the sort of support to do that easily. Jd2718 10:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria

I have created some (subjective) criteria for casting my votes.

I am looking for commitment to the project, to process (although not rigidly so) and to the writing side of the project in particular, in that order. I am using time as a proxy for commitment, as well as behavior in individual incidents.

Adminship is not higher office; it is a set of tools. I'd like ArbCom members to at least pay lip service to that idea. If I can discern real actions based on that, all the better. (I accept that in general more committed editors are more likely to have the tools, but still have to look at each individual. Tools are tools, not status.)

I am looking for commitment to new editors. Patience. Courtesy. Calm, pedagogical approach. And just as much a limit to patience. There is a difference between new user mistakes and systematic disruption. It is perfectly normal that an editor on one or two occasions has lost it. It worries me, just a bit, when someone hever has. And of course habitual incivility is a problem.

There has been discussion of ArbCom's scope. I would support cautious exploration, and to that end will not systematically make decisions based on candidate's attitudes towards content or forms of resolution. Get a good mix of good people, and trust that their consideration and deliberation might slowly (not radically) alter bits of what ArbCom does, how it does it, and what the results look like. (That being said, I am impressed that the idea of time-limited removal of admin tools, freely used, might be a good thing. Too often it looks like consequences for admins are too draconian or none at all - an in between would be good)

And then I might still ignore all guidelines and just go with my gut in one or two cases. Jd2718 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Length of service to the project (certainly more than a year).
  2. Editor - need to increase the number of editors (primary task)
  3. Dispute Resolution - look, this is the huge one. If someone has a history of 3rd party resolution of disputes, or of being a party to disputes, and working out the problems without intervention, that has to count as much or more than anything else.
  4. Civility. Not just civil, but exemplarily so.
  5. Writing. More than Fred would be good (without complaint about the RFA findings I have read). This has more to do with backlog, and on a committee functioning as a committee (no invaluable individuals)
  6. Intelligent. Not calling anyone stupid, but rather some people demonstrate outstanding intellect.
  7. Positive, potentially productive critique of ArbCom (with ideas)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Not enough time serving the project (certainly less than a year.)
  2. Youth. The rules have no age minimum, but too young and interests are far more likely to change in a short period of time. I am not sure about 17, but 16 is not enough. (Frankly, I would prefer to know if they were done with high school/secondary school)
  3. Center of controversy. Candidates fault, or not. If you were the center of a whirlwind, I want to know what you think about selecting ArbCom candidates, but you should not stand, and if you do, I cannot support you. After some time this might change.
  4. POV pushing/editing, or anything that comes close.
  5. Impatience (habitual.)
  6. Abuse of admin tools, or even the appearance of same.
  7. Occasional bouts of bad behavior

[edit] Endorsements

As I decide, even tentatively, I will record my thoughts and reasons here. One "oppose" reason will usually be enough to oppose; several "support" reasons may not be enough to support. I will not supply diffs to support my reasons, though, if challenged, I might. Jd2718 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember, I am opposing some candidates for the ArbCom. I am not calling them bad editors, admins, or Wikipedians!

Bolded votes have been cast

[edit] Support

  1. Blnguyen S2, S4
  2. Flcelloguy - S3 (will add more here)
  3. Geogre - stong. S1, S2, S6, S7
  4. Improv - strong. S1, S3, S4, S6
  5. jpgordon - S1, S6 I think I am satisfied with response re incivility, but want to mull it over a bit more.
  6. Kirill Lokshin - strongest possible; S2, S3, S4, S5, S6.
  7. Paul August - S1, S2, S6
  8. UninvitedCompany - S1, S5, S6
  9. Voice of All
  10. Will Beback - S1, S2, S3, S4, S5. Doesn't excite me as a candidate, but doesn't need to. Should make a solid, trustworthy Arbitrator.

[edit] Oppose

  1. Alex Bakharev - Poking through edits, got the impression he is not sufficiently deliberative for an Arbitrator at this point
  2. Can't sleep, clown will eat me (will add reasons)
  3. crazytales56297 - O2. At age 14 just too young, imo, to make a 3 year commitment.
  4. Daniel Bryant - O1, O2. good service, good Wikipedian, just too new, and a bit young.
  5. Harvestman - O1. too new. I was uncomfortable with the terseness of his answers.
  6. John Reid - O1,O5. too new, and seems to find a bit more than his share of controversy.
  7. Kelly Martin - "Bigger than Wikipedia" is how I characterized her answers to questions. Not suitable for ArbCom. This is tough. I would have thought 24 hours ago, O3 - center of controversy, but I also think that time has passed, that Kelly has been active and productive with Wiki stuff away from here, etc etc. More insider than editor, from the bits I've glimpsed. Strict no-content position on ArbCom.
  8. Kylu - O1. too new. Not enough editing.
  9. Matt Yeager
  10. Phil Sandifer - I reserve the right to disregard my own criteria. He seems, to me, to be too rash for the ArbCom; he has some not so good conduct, but I hesitate. Very intelligent, not afraid to stand up. Really not unpleasant when disagreeing. Maybe this is the voice that needs to be there, different from the rest. Two of him on ArbCom would be a disaster. I am still thinking. Thinks ArbCom should tackle some content.
  11. PMA - hasn't answered questions, but that might relate to a medical procedure he mentioned (hope all turns out well for PMA). Has long service, but I wasn't comfortable with edit/conflict history.
  12. Radiant! - Better off discussing policy. I am still unnerved that he failed to mention his half year self-imposed absence until asked about it directly.
  13. The prophet wizard of the crayon cake - O1. too new.
  14. wildthing61476 - O1. Too new.

[edit] Others

  1. FloNight I don't want clerks to become members, without a break in between. In general, I like the idea of a'flat hierarchy' and worry about the degree to which it does not really exist. I would, (same reasoning) support term limits, if that were an option. Moved vote from opposed to neutral but will continue to raise this very important issue
  2. Golbez
  3. Nandesuka
  4. Nihonjoe
  5. Proto
  6. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
  7. Samuel Blanning
  8. Shell Kinney
  9. Starblind


Doc glasgow Withdrew
Freakofnurture - nothing negative here, I just don't get a sense that he would be a strong Arbitrator. Might stay neutral. Opposed, then withdrew
MONGO - O3, O5. Withdrew
JzG - Sometimes brash or aggressive. Does dirty admin work, and does it well. I'm still thinking. Withdrew.

[edit] First Impressions

I wrote this section late October:

  1. Most (not all) ArbCom members should be editors and administrators. However, I am more inclined to support editors who do a little adminwork than to support administrators who occasionally edit.
  2. A positive history of dispute resolution is important: as a party, a 3rd party, or a mediator/arbitrator/etc or an outsider; and informally, through mediation, or at some other level.
  3. A history that includes problematic service as an administrator will preclude my support. Mistakes as an editor are more easily forgiven.
  4. Strong opinions - good; few/weak opinions - not good; POV-pushing - bad.
  5. A history that includes no rash decisions ever worries me, just a little. A history that includes a pattern of rash decisions will preclude my support.
  6. Since the election will be to a fixed term, there should be no recall. Arbitrators should sit until they decide to leave, or until their term expires. Unfortunately, several candidates who have otherwise impressed me have indicated that they would be arbitrators open to recall. (does not preclude my support, just disappoints me).

Anyway, there are 26 candidates at this moment. I have formed tentative opinions of over half the candidacies, but will keep reading and remain open.Names and impressions. Nothing set in stone, but elections are drawing close.

I think I will support a small number of candidates who I would really like to see chosen as arbitrators, and then remain neutral on a larger number who would be acceptable. I anticipate opposing quite a few.

[edit] First edit; First admin

Over at the official talk page, Saint Tra posted these. I will, probably, scoop out the data and plant it into my main list, above, but for now I'll just repost. Jd2718 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And then Chacor filled in the gaps. Almost complete! Jd2718 03:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And many many more improvements since! Jd2718 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The List

Super-updated, but I've deleted my endorsement stuff. Better that way, anyhow. I'll get more answers first. Jd2718 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • And even more updated. Nominations have closed. Jd2718 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, that that list is huge and well-maintained elsewhere. Just follow the link. Jd2718 13:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General comments and statistics

38 candidates. 2 former arbitrators. 1 bureaucrat. 27 administrators. 2 former administrators. 9 non-administrators. 2 arbitration committee clerks (one inactive). 2 requests for checkuser clerks. 8 candidates with mediation cabal or mediation committee experience. Candidate age range (where revealed) is 14-56. Arrival years (number of candidates): 2002 (1); 2003 (2); 2004 (10); 2005 (20); 2006 (5).

Hmm. This is a bit out of date now. Check back over there and see the expanded version! :-) Carcharoth 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Carcharoth's ArbCom Page has some info as well. I will try to pull various sources together here.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/d/2/User%7EJd2718_jd2718_ArbCom_notes_7561.html"