Jump to content

User:Ched/Arbcom: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 927090511 by SMcCandlish (talk) Stop this nonsense - use a sandbox if you want to play around.
m →[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS|WP:ARBREX]] references: Unused ARB redirect which embodies no reusable principle, replaced: WP:ARBREX → WP:ARBREX
 
(37 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
My page to deal with all things Arbcom:
My page to deal with all things Arbcom:
*Currently on the schedule, the '''Arbcom 2019 election for the 2020 year.'''


== [[WP:ACE2019]] ==
== IMO thoughts ==
very rough draft here, but some passing thoughts.
* There should be a minimum effort at DR prior to filing a case (outside emergency actions). Be it 3 or 4 or whatever number should be decided upon, there should be some community review at some DR board. (AN, AN/I, etc.)
* I think that once a case has been accepted, then anyone wishing to offer evidence should be added to the case, and their own actions should be open to review
* Arbs and former arbs should ''not'' be contributing evidence '''unless''' the case involves them directly, and they should be added to the case party list if they do
* Absolutely NO arb (past or present) should be stating "I think editorx should be sanctioned" outside the active arbs in the PD vote.
* I think some sort of appeal process should be instituted. '''Especially''' when new evidence/facts/circumstances come to light post PD.
* NO arb should incite, encourage, or even hint at ''another'' editor filing a case; either on-wiki, or especially off-wiki. If an Arb feels a case should be filed, then they should have the integrity to file it themselves and stand as a party to the case. Anything less is unbecoming.


=== Considerations ===
== Rough drafts ==
* to review for formatting, content, and flow of posts.
* [[WP:FRAM]]
* Eric Corbett Ban
* Ritchie / Prax IBAN
;note 1
The above topics were important issues our project dealt with during the later half of 2019. In many cases I (and many others) feel that Arbcom simply "got it wrong". One redeeming issue was the open letter from Arbcom to WMF/T&S. They also got most of the FRAM case right, even if they moved very slowly at times.


== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS|WP:ARBREX]] references ==
;note 2
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&oldid=1016272970#Curious_for_your_take AC/N]
There are multiple editors running that I believe I could be good friends with in real life. (especially some of the cranky old men that could relate to my thinking) Still, Arbcom is important, so I do try to set those thoughts aside and focus on who would do well in the role. I do try to be objective.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1016213653 AC talk]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&oldid=1015600269 AC talk]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1016264155#Question_to_the_community:_Should_Arbcom_members_be_restricted_from_discussing_active_cases_and_participants_on_forums_outside_Wikipedia? VP]


== WP:AP3 ==
Issues for 2020:
; Prep for [[WP:AP3]]
* They will likely need to address the Portal issues and behavior.
* ANI: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067#Incivility_By_Admin_User:JzG JzG Incivility]
* Drafting the "T&S"/harassment document and implementing the community RfC.
* WP/AE: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1024626981#JzG WP:AE JzG]
* ANI: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1024612016#User:Terjen Snark and Bite]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_7#Wikipedia:LABLEAKLIKELY RfD LABLEAKLIKELY]
* [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely|Lab Leak MfD]]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1024637846#CNN WP:RS CNN]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1024637846#CNN_-_Video_piece_from_Brian_Stelter CNN again]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1024897131#Falk_&_Tilley_(ECSWA),_Israel_Practices_towards_the_Palestinian_People_and_the_Question_of_Apartheid Israel]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1025304988#Lab_Leak_Again Lab Leak at RSN] see following sections as well.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=1025922614#Note JzG talk] See continuing bickering w/Beyond my Ken and Specifico at end.
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1026142297#User:Beyond_My_Ken ANI - BMK] Note culling and eliminating (2)


==== Quick look ====
== Sigs ==
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1025526093#User:DeNoel's_sig AN/I]

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Signatures&oldid=1025504217#Signatures_and_usernames wp:sig - multiple threads]
Candidates for 2020 term
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1025526042#Simplify_your_signature VP]
*01 Newyorkbrad - Absolute support, no questions asked.
*02 Casliber - Absolute support, no questions asked.
*03 Worm That Turned - Absolute support, no questions asked.
*04 Gadfium - very likely support
*05 Xeno - strong support
*06 KrakatoaKatie - statement comes across as condescending and lecturing, agenda driven - oppose.
*07 David Fuchs - likely support
*08 Enterprisey - Good tech skills, will have to research
*09 Maxim - likely strong support
*10 SoWhy - Absolute support, no questions asked.
*11 Llywrch - strong support
*12 Barkeep49 - may be the best "new blood" I could think of - support.
*13 Thryduulf - Have disagreed in past but I believe him to be compassionate, intelligent and also have the best interests in the project at heart, but answers to questions indicate he supports WMF acting on editors/community on matters beyond legal issues. Last part = probably not
*14 Calidum - Just no. oppose
*15 Bradv - No - oppose
*16 Beeblebrox - I just don't know.
*17 Richwales - No, not active enough
*18 Kudpung - I'll have to think on this. I like Kudpung a LOT, but disagreements with GW didn't look good.
*19 DGG - Often has an alternative and different point of view. Well schooled in deletion protocol and standards.
*20 Hawkeye7 - Need to think on this - getting deadmined is a lot to overcome
*21 The Rambling Man - Need to think on this - getting deadmined is a lot to overcome
*22 Isarra - appears to be a joke nom: note: This is ''NOT'' [[User:Isaacl]] (who I likely would support)
*23

withdrawn:
* GeneralPoxter
* Fish and karate - need to research - but likely support if they stay in - Sorry to see the withdraw
* Laser brain - Pretty sure this will get my full support - Sorry to see the withdraw
* Lord Roem


==== Spec sheet ====
* <small>Table design lifted from [[User:Reaper Eternal/ACE2019]] </small>

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
! Candidate
! edits in 2019
! Thoughts
! width="175px" | My Vote
|-
| 01 * {{Admin|Newyorkbrad}}
| 728
| 2006: Absolute support, no questions asked. They've served in the past, and proven to be level headed, reasonable, and fair. Good sense of humor, even when it's a bit on the dry side at times. Often looked to for advice by other arbs. Institutional memory is a big plus.
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]][[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Strong support'''
|-
| 02 * {{Admin|Casliber}}
| 6980
| 2006: Absolute support, no questions asked. They've served in the past, and proven to be level headed, reasonable, and fair. Very strong in content creation and high-quality articles. Not huge on ''displaying'' humor, but appears to appreciate it when it's innocuous. I've been able to approach them for advice in the past. Institutional memory is a big plus. Also, being from the land down under is a plus.
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]][[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Strong support'''
|-
| 03 * {{Admin|Worm That Turned}}
| 993
| 2008: Absolute support, no questions asked. Part of the current 2019 AC, which is a negative, but has voiced concerns regarding some of the poorer choices made by the committee. They've served in the past, and proven to be level headed, reasonable, and fair. Goes out of his way to respond to concerns. Good sense of humor. I've been able to approach them for advice when needed.
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]][[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Strong support'''
|-
| 04 * {{Admin|Gadfium}}
| 4841
| 2004: Very long term editor and very quiet and polite. Avoids drama and politics. Very dedicated to content. Looking forward to how they respond to being on AC
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Support''' (may go strong support)
|-
| 05 * {{Admin|Xeno}}
| 1669
| 2006: Crat, level-headed, compassionate, and really dedicated to our project. He has experience, tact, and a care for the community. Has the ability to be serious, and yet is still able to display an appreciation for humor. I suspect we could be good friends in real life.
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]][[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Strong support'''
|-
| 06 * {{Admin|KrakatoaKatie}}
| 613
| 2006: Part of the 2019 AC, which suffered from resignations and poor decision making. Fair content 34%, but little activity in past year. Statement comes across as combative, and gender-centric. The statement also appears to be condescending and lecturing. Evasive in responses to questions, and yet often appears to be agenda driven. I've really struggled with this one because I think there are a lot of good qualities as well. I also think there should be more women on AC, but I just don't think it should be a battlefield. Moved to oppose without the "Strong" part.
| [[File:Symbol unrelated.svg|24px]] '''Oppose'''
|-
| 07 * {{Admin|David Fuchs}}
| 1463
| 2005: Has served before, has a strong background in high-quality content. Sometimes overly strict and doesn't display compassion often. Usually reasonable, and fair. Does not display a sense of humor on wiki, at least not often. I'd like to see a bit more empathy and understanding, but still a solid candidate.
|[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''weak Support'''
|-
| 08 * {{Admin|Enterprisey}}
| 2059
| 2012: Fairly new as arbs go. Don't know much about them, appear to be technical in nature which isn't always good when dealing with people. Seems like a very nice person, but doesn't appear to have much experience in many of the areas that Arbs must function in.
| [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|24px]] '''Neutral'''
|-
| 09 * {{Admin|Maxim}}
| 1486
| 2007: 'Crat, and a good one. Over 50% in article work. Has always appeared neutral and yet compassionate when dealing with other users. Often appears to be aware, without contributing to drama holes. Desysoped an admin. during a RFAR case, gutsy IAR action, but considered and reasonable given the circumstances. Good answers to questions. move to support.
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Support'''
|-
| 10 * {{Admin|SoWhy}}
| 3539
| 2004: I worked with them a fair amount when I first started, they are very knowledgeable in the content deletion areas. Not a huge content creator. Doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve, but is still level-headed, reasonable and fair. Very willing to help when asked. Institutional memory is a big plus.
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Support'''
|-
| 11 * {{Admin|Llywrch}}
| 1050
| 2002: Old school admin and editor. HUGE in content creation (75%). Great sense of humor. Thinks before he types, and is always considered and fair. Institutional memory is a big plus.
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]][[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Strong support'''
|-
| 12 * {{Admin|Barkeep49}}
| 7038
| 2005-2018: Interesting candidate. Registered in 2005, but didn't really jump in until early 2018. Has been very involved in many areas, displays intelligence, reason, and compassion. Everything I've seen them comment on appears to be well researched and considered before they post. Appears to grasp the weight of serving on Arbcom. It would mean new blood to the AC, and I think that's a good thing.
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Support''' (may change to strong)
|-
| 13 * {{Admin|Thryduulf}}
| 4015
| 2004: This is a tough one for me. I do like Thryduulf, even though we've disagreed on some things. Intelligent and well-spoken, but as mentioned in other guides, has a tendency to hold on to things that are less than complimentary. It's a fault I have myself, but not sure I want it in AC. In the end, his view on the WMF is too far removed from my own beliefs for me to support.
| [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|24px]] '''Neutral'''
|-
| 14 * {{User2|Calidum}}
| 1237
| 2011: No - Not an admin and doesn't have the temperament for it.
| [[File:Symbol unrelated.svg|24px]][[File:Symbol unrelated.svg|24px]] '''Strong oppose'''
|-
| 15 * {{Admin|Bradv}}
| 6108
| 2008: The declined Strictland article doesn't bother me nearly as much as their "not my fault" attitude. Their RfA often came across as an entitlement, and once they got the extra buttons their postings as an arb clerk seemed to take on an air of "respect mah authoritah" that I didn't care for. I'm just not seeing the humility or compassion I need to see in a candidate. Not enough experience, and a bit too much ego for my tastes.
| [[File:Symbol unrelated.svg|24px]] '''Oppose'''
|-
| 16 * {{Admin|Beeblebrox}}
| 4408
| 2007: Beebs started about a year before me, got his mop shortly after I got mine, and back in those days we seemed to get along pretty well. Somewhere along the line he appears to have become very cynical and jaded about the project though (it happens all too easily). But even his statement has a "I don't want to be here" air to it. I like Beebs, and he does a helluva lot of good for the project. I don't want to force another stint of Arbcom on him, but he has too many of the required skills for me to oppose.
| [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|24px]] '''Neutral'''
|-
| 17 * {{Admin|Richwales}}
| 234
| 2005: Nobody is required to contribute any certain amount, but 234 edits for the entire year (2019), is simply too much time away to be effective. There have been FAR too many Arbs who simply "phone in their" votes over the years, and I want an arb to actually read the material and investigate the links and situations.
| [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|24px]] '''Neutral'''
|-
| 18 * {{Admin|Kudpung}}
| 4356
| 2006: I consider Kudpung a wiki-friend, but will need to do the research. After much hand wringing and research, I feel that the discussions (mentioned in the Questions) with GorillaWarfare and others is more of a barrier than I feel comfortable in breaking. There were a lot of people who did not cover themselves in glory during that entire affair, and I'm not going to choose one particular item to highlight. I won't oppose, but neither can I support without reservation.
| [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|24px]] '''Neutral'''
|-
| 19 * {{Admin|DGG}}
| 17,805
| 2006: DGG is an unusual case for me, and I think many others. He's a person who marches to a tune of own drummer, and not given to public displays of emotion. He has the ability to think outside the box, more so than most. He won't "follow the crowd", unless the crowd happens to be going his direction anyway. He tends to be more deletionist than inclusionist when it comes to our articles, but he does know the policies to a T. He can come up with unique solutions, and untried methods in dealing with the many [[Gordian Knot]]s found on Wikipedia. I tried to get to know him better, but he often appears resigned to strictly the business end of Wiki. The aloofness does leave me feeling that there won't be any "wp:involved" issues to deal with though. Intelligent and thoughtful, if not gregarious. While not emotional on Wiki, I do believe he has the compassion I require for support as an Arb - so I will support.
| [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Support'''
|-
| 20 * {{User2|Hawkeye7}}
| 4824
| 2005: I like Hawkeye, but there is a stubbornness there. Tremendous asset to the project, but the desysop is just too much to overcome.
| [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|24px]] '''Neutral'''
|-
| 21 * {{User2|The Rambling Man}}
| 19,991
| 2005: Another editor I have a ton of respect for. Great work in DYK, but that was also a problem as well. I admire the workaround he designed, but again, the desysop is more than I can overlook.
| [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|24px]] '''Neutral'''
|-
| 22 * {{User2|Isarra}}
| 137
| 2010: Actually appears to have a lot of technical skills, but I doubt it's a serious nom. Lack of edits in 2019 means no.
| [[File:Symbol unrelated.svg|24px]] '''Oppose'''
|-
| {{Admin|Example}}
| {{done|2}}
| Sample row ICE.
| [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|24px]] '''Neutral''' {{break}}
[[File:Symbol unrelated.svg|24px]] '''Oppose''' {{break}}
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|24px]] '''Support'''
|}

{{ACE2019}}

[[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2019 voter guides]]

Latest revision as of 13:44, 3 August 2022

My page to deal with all things Arbcom:

IMO thoughts

very rough draft here, but some passing thoughts.

  • There should be a minimum effort at DR prior to filing a case (outside emergency actions). Be it 3 or 4 or whatever number should be decided upon, there should be some community review at some DR board. (AN, AN/I, etc.)
  • I think that once a case has been accepted, then anyone wishing to offer evidence should be added to the case, and their own actions should be open to review
  • Arbs and former arbs should not be contributing evidence unless the case involves them directly, and they should be added to the case party list if they do
  • Absolutely NO arb (past or present) should be stating "I think editorx should be sanctioned" outside the active arbs in the PD vote.
  • I think some sort of appeal process should be instituted. Especially when new evidence/facts/circumstances come to light post PD.
  • NO arb should incite, encourage, or even hint at another editor filing a case; either on-wiki, or especially off-wiki. If an Arb feels a case should be filed, then they should have the integrity to file it themselves and stand as a party to the case. Anything less is unbecoming.

Rough drafts

  • to review for formatting, content, and flow of posts.

WP:ARBREX references

WP:AP3

Prep for WP:AP3

Sigs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Ched/Arbcom&oldid=1102125731"