User:SilkTork/ArbNotes2015
Preamble
[edit]ArbCom is a committee with limited scope for doing harm to the project, so voting is less stringent than for becoming an admin, steward or bureaucrat; however, being part of the Committee is seen as a Big Deal, and it generates a lot of interest from hard-core and career-level Wikipedians. The reasons for this are historic. Arbitration of difficult disputes was originally handled by the founder, Jimbo Wales. As time went on, Jimbo decided to delegate responsibility for arbitration to a committee of experienced and trusted users. As such, the Committee were seen as regents for Jimbo, and this role and responsibility is reinforced by the close relationship the Committee has with the Foundation.
The main role of the Committee in resolving difficult disputes is the most public and obvious function, and the one on which the Committee is judged, however the Committee has other functions: hearing unblock appeals, appointing and overseeing CheckUser and OverSight, dealing with certain private issues, such as those related to child abuse, and being the unofficial interface between the community and the Foundation. What is required to deal with these varying aspects is a good understanding of the project, tact and diplomacy, a collaborative mindset, discretion, decisiveness, patience, moral courage, communication skills, and organisational skills. It may come as no surprise that Committee members tend to have important roles in Real Life, are generally graduates and professionals, and may already have committee experience. Such people know how to manage their time, deal with other people, and handle complex public facing matters with some measure of tact and skill.
It is up to each person as to who they vote for. For the project as a whole it doesn't really matter who gets in; the Committee has little involvement in the day to day running of the encyclopaedia, don't create or amend policy, and for 99.9% of the community the Committee will be as relevant as Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting; but for those who do get drawn into an ArbCom case, and for the other Committee members, it is helpful to appoint people who are experienced Wikipedians, have some experience and skill in dispute resolution, and are able to work collaboratively as part of a committee. Being an admin is indicative that an individual is already experienced and respected with some dispute resolution experience, but it is not essential to be an admin, and that an individual has decided not to go through the trial of an RfA should not necessarily be held against them, but may be borne in mind.
Candidates
[edit]| Candidate | Notes | Potential |
|---|---|---|
| Naive, but well meaning. With care and experience may well serve in a useful capacity on Wikipedia some day | Withdrawn. A sensible decision. | |
| Callanecc (talk · contribs) | 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
Elected on 68% - 5th |
| Casliber (talk · contribs) | Has already worked effectively on the Committee, and is one of our strongest content builders. That blend of ArbCom experience, project commitment, and high level content experience is very rare. Concerns about being a little too judgemental and/or blinkered at times, but that is minor compared to what he has to offer. | Pretty much guaranteed. Likely to finish with highest % of votes
Elected on 78% - 1st |
| Drmies (talk · contribs) | Widely respected as an editor and admin. | Highly likely. Will probably finish near the top
Elected on 70% - 4th |
| Gamaliel (talk · contribs) | An active, long term contributor and admin (since 2004), so has good awareness of Wikipedia issues. Was a candidate in 2013, just missing out. Has been more involved in the project since then, so may have pleased or annoyed more people - hard to say. Opinion seems divided. | Borderline - may get a one year term, or just miss out again
Elected on 62% for one year term - 9th |
| GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) | Long term editor and just finishing two years on the Committee, so plenty of experience and plenty of clue. Has not performed as well as expected on the Committee. There are concerns that her vision is clouded with perceived feminist issues, but that may be more to do with people not agreeing with those views. It is useful to have range of views on any committee, but especially the Arb Committee. She is one of the few Wikipedians to have her own Commons gallery. | Possible. May get a one year term.
Elected on 66% - 7th |
| Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) | I was on the Committee that voted to desysop Hawkeye7. He had been admonished by a previous Committee for poor judgement and misuse of the tools. He is a very strong content editor, and has worked on numerous Featured and Good articles. He has been a solid contributor to the project since the end of 2006. Has not asked the community for the return of the tools. Earlier this year made a comment which indicated either misunderstanding of the way an ArbCom desysopping works, or is bitter about the judgement. Either way, that's not a positive sign for someone seeking to work with the Committee. Good content work and an asset to the project, but potentially unsound on matters related to ArbCom. | Very unlikely
Not elected on 55% - 12th |
| Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) | Has been a strong editor since 2009. Also has strong opinions, and a somewhat stubborn attitude. Has been blocked three times. Had an unhelpfully long talkpage until 11 months ago, and didn't seem to understand why that was a problem. Some folks like his anti-porn stance. He's not an admin, and hasn't applied to be one. | Unlikely
Not elected on 43% - 18th |
| Keilana (talk · contribs) | Has been around since 2007, with a break in 2010, but editing and admin activity levels are fairly low. Has advanced permissions. Blocked Eric Corbett earlier this year, with some follow up discussion after she marked her recall process as historic when it was brought up. Was an unsuccessful candidate in 2012. Moderately divides opinion. | Possible, though borderline
Elected on 78% - 3rd. Possibly the biggest surprise in that she got such a high percentage of the vote. Seems the community likes those who have the confidence to block Eric Corbett |
| Kelapstick (talk · contribs) | Has been editing since 2007 with variable contribution levels. Edits in a range of areas, with the bulk in File, doing useful janitor work. Mainspace edits are modest, but useful. Has advanced rights. Is fairly quiet, and is respected by a number of people. | Fairly likely, probably low to middle %
Elected on 66% - 6th |
| Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) | Controversial. Perception is that he spends more time observing and commenting than building or helping. Widely seen as a distraction bordering on disruptive. Has been editing since 2011, though contributions, particularly to mainspace, have declined to a low level in 2015. His overwhelmingly most significant contributions this year have been related to his candidacy for ArbCom. I supported him for admin in 2014, seeing him as someone intelligent, articulate, and passionate about the project. Might be an interesting member of the Committee, but might also be troublesome and distracting, so a support vote is a gamble. | Possible, but oppose votes may damage chances
Not elected on 48% - had a high number of oppose votes, but even without those, didn't get enough support |
| Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) | Has had two previous terms on the Committee, and is involved in many areas of Wikipedia and related projects, so is fully experienced, and would be an asset. Lots of folks will support based on that memory of him. Has been editing since 2004, with some impressive contributions. Editing levels have dropped in recent years, though not to an alarmingly low level. Many people will oppose for the dubious block of Eric Corbett in October, which subsequently resulted in a desysopping of the admin who unblocked, and an ongoing ArbCom case. Others may quietly support the block. Fair to say that blocks of Eric Corbett cause controversy and divide opinion. | Unknown. Possibly not due to oppose votes for the dubious block
Elected on 65% - 7th. Again it seems that blocking Eric Corbett, even in dubious and controversial circumstances, does not harm the chances of a candidate. |
| Kudpung (talk · contribs) | I've liked Kudpung since he involved himself in the GA review of Milford Haven back in 2010. His enthusiasm and good will were charming, though had to be somewhat curbed when he started to take over the review. ;-) We've kept in touch since, and though have not always agreed, I have always liked his enthusiasm for the project, and his willingness to try to do the right thing. Yes, he can be strident at times, and may not always see the big picture, but he's here to assist the project, and has a lot of energy. I think people are unsure how to take him - some see his manner of jumping straight into things as perhaps alarming and lacking in diplomacy, others see the positive desire to help. He'd be an unknown quantity on the Committee - he may attempt to take it over and run it his way; he may use it as a platform to reform RfA; he may annoy and irritate the hell out of the other Committee members; or he may lend some of his considerable desire to serve, his energy, and his enthusiasm to very positive ends. I hope for the later. | Unknown. He may get a one year term
Not elected on 53% - everything pretty much balances out and he finishes roughly in the middle |
| LFaraone (talk · contribs) | Has been editing since 2004 with varying involvement levels. Low editing levels, especially to mainspace in 2015, though has held advanced permissions since 2013, and was voted onto ArbCom in 2014. Some people disagree with his decisions on the Committee, but that's to be expected. There'll be plenty of others who agree.
The desysopping of Yngvadottir is what had to be done because the essence of ArbCom is that Committee decisions cannot be reversed; anyone who reverses an ArbCom supported action can expect to be sanctioned, or we might as well pack in ArbCom right now - though I think a motion to desysop would have been less disturbing than using the emergency procedures. Anyway, supporting the desysopping was purely procedure as that is the sort of decision you have to make, even if you privately agreed with the unblocking. I'm in the camp who thinks the block was inappropriate, but we have procedures for dealing with that. |
Borderline
Not elected on 56% - finishing just two places below the last elected candidate |
| MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) | Widely seen as too pointy and agenda driven to be useful. Has been around since 2006, but the bulk of his edits have come this year, and mostly to the talk arenas. Has been blocked five times this year. | Highly unlikely
Not elected on 40% - finished 3rd from bottom with second highest oppose votes |
| Mahensingha (talk · contribs) | Has been editing quietly since 2011, but at a very low level, with a greater burst of contributions this year. Universally seen as too inexperienced, especially as he isn't an admin. | Highly unlikely
Not elected on 28% - finished bottom with most oppose votes and fewest support |
| NE Ent (talk · contribs) | As with Callenecc, 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 ArbCom role, but concerns of a lack of perspective of the central purpose of the project. Opinions are divided. Some like NE Ent's involvement in AN, others feel he is too noisy, offering too much opinion and not enough solution. He's not an admin, so that will work against him in some quarters, though others will support purely on that point. | Borderline. May be the Committee's first non-admin, but may just fall short
Not elected on 45% - finished in bottom third, lower than expected. Seems the community are not ready to accept onto the Committee those individuals who have not got admin tools. I suppose it's like someone applying to be a lifeguard who hasn't got life-saving qualifications
|
| Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) | 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
|
| Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) | I was part of the Committee that desysopped Rich, and to my discredit I had a stupid moment when I inappropriately intervened in his attempt to get the tools back. I am ashamed of that involvement as I was overreacting to what had been said in the nomination statement, and to some unfair assumptions on my part. Any comments I make here should be balanced with those incidents.
Rich is an experienced Wikipedian with plenty of knowledge about how things work. His preferred focus on the small details rather than the big picture means that he may see things that the rest of the Committee miss; however, that has to be balanced with a concern that he may be a drain on the rest of the Committee's patience by arguing small points that don't matter, and that he may well slow down an already laboriously slow process. |
Narrowly missed out on regaining the admin tools, so has enough support to be a real contender
Not elected on 53% - gained more support than Kelapstick, who got elected on a two year term, but had more oppose votes |
| Withdrawn | ||
| Has only been regularly editing for just over three months, and has little content creation, dispute resolution, decision making, or consensus deciding experience. Essentially an unknown quantity. But as there is some interest in doing janitor work, would be worth working toward being an admin later next year. | Extremely unlikely. Now withdrawn. A sensible decision | |
| Thryduulf (talk · contribs) | Is just finishing a year's experience of working on the Committee so has that in his favour, though there have been questions about his overall judgement and performance, including Yngvadottir's desysopping.
The desysopping of Yngvadottir is what had to be done because the essence of ArbCom is that Committee decisions cannot be reversed; anyone who reverses an ArbCom supported action can expect to be sanctioned, or we might as well pack in ArbCom right now - though I think a motion to desysop would have been less disturbing than using the emergency procedures. Anyway, supporting the desysopping was purely procedure as that is the sort of decision you have to make, even if you privately agreed with the unblocking. I'm in the camp who thinks the block was inappropriate, but we have procedures for dealing with that. |
Borderline
Not elected on 59% - just missed out by 2.5%; gained more support votes than Kelapstick, but had too many oppose votes |
| Has been around since 2006, so has decent Wikipedia experience. Seems level headed, and has gained the support of a number of people. Compared to other candidates has little explicit experience of dispute resolution, so is a relatively weak candidate. Essentially an unknown quantity, so a risky choice. Not being an admin is neither here nor there as regards the ArbCom role, but it will inhibit some. He looks a decent enough admin candidate, and I suspect people will wonder about his judgement in not going through that RfA first. Others may support purely because he is not an admin because in some corners of the community there is this feeling that admins are somehow different people to the rest of the community.
His answers to my admin questions will gain him some support from certain areas of the community, but will alienate and disappoint others. There is an anti-admin attitude shown in the answers which is unhelpful in general, and particularly for someone who is to be working in the Committee. I became an admin so I didn't have to ask others to do work for me, and so I could assist more in the project. Timtrent appears to be someone who expects others to do menial everyday tasks for him because having the mop and bucket is beneath him, or something. I don't fully understand why someone would want someone else to protect pages, someone else to show him deleted content, someone else to do the everyday tasks that admins do to keep this project going. In that case, why not let someone else be on the Committee who is prepared to roll up their sleeves and do their fair share of the work? |
Initially looked promising, but lack of the experience and understanding for the role will put people off. Withdrawn.
Not elected - withdrew after elections started, so votes are mainly neutral | |
| Wildthing61476 (talk · contribs) | 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% |
Conclusion
[edit]There really weren't any big surprises in the election. On the whole those who looked likely to gain enough support, did so, and those who looked unlikely to get the support, didn't. The order of the percentage tally was also pretty much as expected.
The elements that are surprising and/or interesting are:
1) Keilana getting equal 2nd highest support. She nominated herself in 2012 but failed to get elected, she divides opinion, her answers to the questions were unremarkable (though her reposes to the civility questions were good), and her admin and editing contributions are fairly low, so there's little there to show why so many people voted for her. Except, she blocked Eric Corbett this year for violation of his incivility restriction. It's possible that the community want folks on the Committee who have the confidence to deal with controversial users like Eric, and who are clearly making a stand against incivility. There is, of course, also the issue that she is female - and that may have inclined some to favour Keilana for various individual reasons: to help fill the gender gap, to give a different perspective on the Committee, to raise the profile of women on Wikipedia, etc.
2) Rich Farmbrough only getting 53% of the vote, though he got 66% in his RfA. If he got the same percentage in this vote, he'd now be on the Committee. There are a number of differences between that RfA and this ArbCom election. Less than 150 users voted for/against Rich in the RFA; over 1,500 users voted for/against him in this election. The ArbCom election is done using a secret ballot. People are voting for different things. That he wasn't an admin may have also told against him, as non of the non-admins did as well as expected.
3) None of the non-admin candidates did well. There was a feeling that this year might be the first in which a non-admin was voted onto the Committee. Perhaps none of the non-admin candidates were good enough. Perhaps the other candidates were stronger and would have finished higher even if the non-admin candidates were admins. Or perhaps the community are comfortable with a non-admin serving on the Committee.
Voter guides
[edit] | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |