User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/AC
|
This voting guide
- seems to be more popular :) than my articles! :(
- agrees mostly with the evaluations by Ealdgyth, Elonka, SandyGeorgia, Badger Drink , and Wizardman. All of these guides emphasize the candidates' recent behavior, which is a better predictor of ArbCom performance than the questionnaire response.
- Guides with greater emphasis on Wikipedia policies and ArbCom processes were written by HJ Mitchell, Nuclear Warfare.
Overview[edit]
My recommendations are the following:
Support[edit]
- Indomitably: Coren, Kirill, and Courcelles.
- Mightily: Risker, Roger Davies, SilkTork, and AGK.
- Persuasively: Hersfold, and JClemens
- Tactically: Delta Quad and KWW
Oppose[edit]
- Firmly: Worm That Turned (WTT), Geni
- Maturely: Eluchil404 and Panyd.
- Obviously: NWA.Rep and Hot Stop.
Comments[edit]
Within each category, the candidates are roughly ordered, beginning with the best. These within-category orderings are more uncertain than the between-category divisions.
I'll explain qualifications next, and later discuss the candidates individually with comments.
Qualifications[edit]
Understanding and curiosity[edit]
- ArbComm has to read a lot of material, often revolving around content disputes, and so its members must have a good education, simply to keep up, and especially to make wise decisions.
- Having written GA/FA articles or reviewed GA/FA articles on traditional encyclopedia topics are important merits, showing intellectual power.
- ArbComm members carry big sticks---and I can show you my bruises---so their public whispers cause hurricanes on Wikipedia. Clear writing is essential, and "negative capability"---silence when we have nothing good to say---is desirable.
Solidarity[edit]
Concern for vulnerable persons. Publishing the formerly confidential emails of a vulnerable person was proposed, at least briefly, by one administrator, before he clarified his opposition. Clear and firm opposition to such disclosure is an important merit; Wikipedia has had too many suicides already.
Prudence[edit]
In the Monty Hall problem case, some early decisions would have hobbled the mathematics project. I oppose candidates who behaved imprudently at the RfC of Badger Drink (or at my own RfC!).
Experience, being necessary for maturity[edit]
ArbCom is a terrible job, so the volunteers should deserve some appreciation for their hard work. Many members quit, because of the work load and the bitching and moaning of the herd of independent minds called "the community".
Thus, good ArbCom experience is an important merit. Good experience elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia's mediation committee) is another great merit.
As a rule, new administrators should not be on ArbCom. There are no exceptions this year.
Evaluation of Candidates[edit]
Support[edit]
Indomitably[edit]
- Coren (Incumbent)
- Great work on the Monty Hall Problem. Very good public leadership opposing the publication of confidential emails from a vulnerable user. Legendary creator of Corenbot.
- Nuclear Winter votes "neutral" for Coren. Dumbing-down ArbCom by removing Coren is a terrible idea. H. J. Mitchell opposes because Coren has few recent edits; in another year blessed with a great set of alternative candidates, this issue might have made a difference.
- Great work on the Monty Hall Problem. Very good public leadership opposing the publication of confidential emails from a vulnerable user. Legendary creator of Corenbot.
- Kirill Lokshin (Incumbent)
- Great work on the Monty Hall problem. Protected vulnerable editor.
- Nuclear Winter favors removing Kirill_Lokshin, perhaps having some "neutral"-rated candidates serve instead. Among NW's neutrals, none could have performed Kirill's work on Month Hall problem. Dumbing-down ArbCom by removing Kirill is a terrible idea. (Despite having high regard for Kirill's writing and administrative contributions to ArbCom, H.J. Mitchell is neutral, because of questions raised in "other voter guides".)
- Great work on the Monty Hall problem. Protected vulnerable editor.
- Courcelles (new).
- Strong support. Good writer. Experienced. Opposed publication of confidential materials involving vulnerable editor.
Why I am supporting incumbents[edit]
I have ignored the ArbComm mailing scandals, whose real scandals have been the theft of confidential correspondence and the WP community reading stolen confidential correspondence. Thus, my guide does not suggest "throw the bums out".... Rather, a quality ArbCom this year requires the re-election of most incumbent administrators, if only to block unqualified/mediocre candidates.
- "Hurrah for revolution and more cannon-shot!
- A beggar upon horseback lashes a beggar on foot.
- Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!
- The beggars have changed places, but the lash goes on."— "The Great Day", William Butler Yeats (1938)
Mightily[edit]
- Risker (Incumbent).
- Inactive on Monty Hall Problem. Good work on vulnerable user
- Roger Davies (Incumbent)
- Good work on vulnerable user. Inactive on Monty Hall problem
- SilkTork (new)
- Nice person, Good writer, whom (nearly) everybody supports.
- AGK
- Good person; a few times overly process oriented. Seems to have a lot of experience and community trust being elected to lead the mediation committee, etc.
Persuasively[edit]
- Hersfold.
- Good person, good administrator, experienced, even at ArbCom.
- JClemens
- JClemens's suggested decision in the Monty Hall problem case would have hamstrung the mathematics project (11.3). In this case, he was also naively lenient in suggested action 1.2.
- Another reason for objection to JClemens was his repeated support for publicizing confidential materials from a vulnerable user. My vagueness protects privacy, intentionally. At the end, JClemens clarified that he opposed releasing confidential email, I am glad to add. However ...
Tactically[edit]
- Delta Quad
- I barely supported DQ at RfA. Needs more experience and quality editing. Has been doing good work as an administrator. Ordinarily, I would vote neutral.
- This election has too many immature, inexperienced candidates, who should not be on ArbCom. Thus, I support Delta Quad because some unqualified ArbCom members may be knocked out of the running.
- KWW.
- Endorsements by Casliber, Carrite, etc. outweigh concerns by SandyGeorgia, at least this year.
Oppose[edit]
"Friend, though hast no business here", said the Quaker as he pushed back the pirate over the ship's railing"
Firmly[edit]
Worm That Turned[edit]
- Worm That Turned (WTT).
I oppose WTT's election this year, with regrets, because he has (1) pushed poorly written bacon-articles onto the main page and (2) supported partisan RfCs (flawed with cherry-picked diffs, taken out of context) that have ignored others' misbehaviors.
1. WTT won the 2011 Bacon Cup by writing 4 DYKs and 2 GAs on bacon-topics. WTT's bacon-cup victory is not a merit for ArbCom, however:
- The articles had poor prose (e.g. jumbling tenses),
- weak sources (perhaps even advertising?), and
- made factual errors:
- I corrected many errors in the Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival.
- The main page featured a picture of a BLT with WTT's hook attributing increase in hog prices only to American's eating Bacon-Lettuce-and-Tomato sandwiches (BLTs) rather than to the increase in grain-prices emphasized by the Telegraph's article, which was entitled "...Prices ... jump after wheat crop failures". Read the article and judge whether this is a case of POV-pushing, with bacon being pushed onto Wikipedia's Main Page not by Stephen Colbert or any (fictitious) Pig Farmers of America but by an ArbCom candidate who was trying to win a Bacon Cup (pictured).
- A search for BLTs and hog-prices revealed no academic articles but only silly examples used in teaching microeconomics.
- As I expected, as an statistician surrounded by time-series econometricians, I found nothing on the alleged "BLT bump"—despite the pork cycle being the canonical example of periodicity (since 1928) in econometrics and agricultural economics. (Such a bump would be identifiable using [frequency domain|spectral analysis]], but then farmers would strategically adapt and presumably eliminate the arbitrage, in this, the best of all possible worlds.) Update: Some confusion between pork and bacon appeared when I removed the mistaken claim, in the discussion on the talk page of the BLT for which WTT and I shared a barn-star.
2. In two RfC's, WTT and other enthusiasts from RfA Reform have behaved like U.S. prosecutors, cherry-picking diffs to establish guilt, neglecting the principle of fairness, "it's important that comments are taken in context", written by ArbCom member Casliber, in an RfC.
- A. Badger Drink RfC. WTT was recently admonished by present ArbCom member Casliber, in the current (badly flawed) Request for Comment about the Conduct of User:Badger Drink: Earlier, WTT first dismissed concerns that the RfC was retaliation for Badger's opposition to a young RfA candidate because it discussed other issues, and then made the belated suggestion that the RfC should have been conducted after the RfA (!), in denial about how the RfC was viewed by outside viewers. This RfC has frequent personal-attacks and incivility directed against Badger, without complaints from WTT; this acquiesence gives the appearance of partisanship and double-standards. (The anti-Badger RfC was imprudently and willfully filed, despite the pleas of advice of experienced administrators at ANI.)
- B. My RfC/Full disclosure:
- My account risks seeming self-serving, so I make it available on demand, for those wishing to read diffs documenting assertions.
Details
| |||
---|---|---|---|
|
The community has observed ArbCom for many years. When ArbCom members walk among us, we don't want them to brandish (or swing) their ArbCom billy-clubs, with possible partisanship---the appearance of which concerned ArbCom member Casliber in Badger Drink's RfC/U.
- Did You Know
- "... that high autumn pork prices are blamed on Americans eating so many BLTs (pictured) during the summer?"
Discussion of BLT this week
|
---|
His candidacy faces my opposition this year. Let us wish that WTT shall earn our support for the next election. |
- Geni
I was somewhat concerned by the bad block of Malleus F. The diffs given by NW and SandyGeorgia convinced me to oppose.
Maturely[edit]
- Eluchil404
- Intemperate and imprudent position in the RfC against Badger Drink, but better than Panyd there.
- Panyd
Meshegas fun der goyim: Accusing an editor of racism, Pandyd ignored the long ANI discussion on "goyim"
|
---|
Badger Drink's edit summary included a funny summary, "only a truly befuddled, naive goyim would present something so condescending as fact", which was denounced as "racism" in a "case" at ANI, which was laughed at. Nonetheless,
A fair outside-view and dismissal of the "racism" charge was given by editor Cardamon. After quote[edit]The ironic & humorous use of "a goyim" was discussed at ANI with mind-numbing/numbed exhaustiveness. The fatuity of this "RfC/U Outside view", disregarding the ANI discussion, suggests that the Panyd and the signatories failed to read examine the diff of the "goyim" joke or the diffs where Badger Drink replied at ANI. Anybody who would write (or support) such a fatuous rant, accusing an editor of racism after the ANI discussion, is unfit to serve on ArbCom. |
Obviously[edit]
Nobody supports these candidates and most oppose them.
- NWA.Rep
- Hot Stop
A Guide to the guides to the guides: Who guides the guiders?[edit]
With too many seats and too many candidates, this election may give first-time voters headaches. Be not afraid! Three angelic editors have provided guides to the guiders, to which I and User:Volunteer Marek guide you:
- Monty845 wrote a descriptive guide summarizing voting advice.
- John Vandenberg voted support/neutral/oppose for each guide. He obviously mistyped "support" rather than the intended "strong support" for this guide. ;) He rightly notes that my participation at the ArbCom case of the Monty Hall problem was important, so much so that an early edition of this guide leaned towards opposing JClemens.
- SandyGeorgia's (obviously flawed!) methodology ignores this guide, but rather summarizes the three guides---by SandyGeorgia, Elonka, and Ealgdyth---I recommended below.
Other guides:[edit]
- Wikipedia's best writers have the ability to analyze important ideas and to write clearly. Of course, SandyGeorgia, Ealgdyth, Elonka wrote great guides.
- I praise Elonka, despite my having criticized her in both of our previous interactions: Elonka's opposition to Worm That Turned cannot be dismissed as "axe grinding".
- Two of the guides make a lot of accusations and are filled with name-calling. After criticism, their most egregious NPA/AGF/Civility violations have been removed, but new editors should understand their authors' personal involvements and depth of anger:
- Sven Manguard accused Roger Davies of having a "God complex". Sven disclosed that he is more familiar with WTT off-Wiki than on-Wikipedia. Sven removed an unsubstantiated personal attack alleging sock-puppetry, without apology but with the comment that "it was not worth fighting over". Not only did Sven criticize this guide as "having an axe to grind", he also edited Monty's user-space and removed the links to the individual comments.
- William M. Connolley, who has been sanctioned several times, honestly wrote transparent attacks on ArbCom members, calling individuals by name "crap", called Kirrill Lokshin "crap", calls Hersfold a "lightweight", etc.
Gnu's not Unix[edit]
This guide discusses itself and Volunteer Marek's guide, and may well be the first meta-recursive guide in Wikipedia election history. Volunteer Marek's meta-guide discusses only other guides to guides
|