 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
| These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
The barely-filtered views of a jaded, Political Correctness-hating, NPOV-loving middle-aged pinko content writer that spends way too much time hanging out at Wikipediocracy...
"We are here to build an encyclopedia, not sing Kumbaya, and this is a shop floor."
:::::::::::::::—Wehwalt, July 30, 2014.::::::::::::::
"The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work."
::::::::::("The Øth law of Wikipedia, Author unknown, nicked from Raul's Laws.):::::::::
Let's not mince words: the ArbCom of 2015 has been shitty. They have been horrifically slow, they have utterly lacked transparency, they have failed to take timely decisive action where needed (Scalhotrod), they have failed to make reasonable accommodations for the return of Net Positive editors with checkered pasts to advance the cause of The Project (Richard Norton, Rich Farmborough). Now they're futzing around with an Eric Corbett case they never should have taken and which never would have been necessary had it not been for the inane requirement for "escalating blocks" that this ArbCom dangled over his head in a previous case.
There aren't more than three of the sitting Arbs that I would support for re-election... It has been an absolutely miserable failure of a year for The Committee. I wish I could say things are going to get better in 2016, but given who is staying and who is leaving and the nature of the current crop of hopefuls, it probably is not.
The level of support maintained by ArbCom is at an all-time low, as nearly as I can tell. The loss of New York Brad was enormous and now with Roger Davies not coming back to help keep the freight train on the rails, god help us all...
Here is my message, ArbCom and ArbCom wannabes, please listen well:
1. Be fast. Get rid of the Workshop garbage completely. Set an actual deadline for Proposed Decision and stick to it. It should take three weeks, not three months.
2. Be transparent. Model yourselves upon an American local government under open meeting laws. Debate in public, not by email, unless privacy requirements absolutely mandate a secret "executive session." Get rid of the secret testimony of poison pens by email. Your workload will actually decrease in the process — win, win.
3. Be humble. Drop the Supreme Court pretense. You're a fucking Discipline Committee for a website, you're not the Supreme Court. You're gonna make mistakes from time to time and what you say is not the last word of law. Dispatch with the pomp and cut to the chase with decisions.
4. Be fair. Administer discipline where it is needed, but allow a realistic path back to good grace for Net Positive editors who have screwed up or strayed.
All right, let's take a good look at these candidates, shall we?
Addendum: I am juggling position of a couple of NO names, one of which I didn't punch hard enough and another of which I downgraded a bit unfairly without adequate explanation due to a personal incident in which I believe they behaved unreasonably. Not that anyone cares particularly, no still means no in either case... (I heard ya, A.L.) Carrite (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: A couple more switches, moving Kudpung to Oppose and Wildthing61476 to Support. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 | "Nine seats are available to be filled, but Arbcom does not need all 9 to be filled. If you do not believe a candidate is suitable, vote oppose." —Worm That Turned |
"In five years I haven't noticed a sexist culture here at all but I don't go looking for it. I have noticed pov pushers, coi editors, editors who can't write a sensible sentence, editors who don't/won't/can't comprehend what they read, overlinkers and triviamongers. Perhaps that is because I usually concentrate on content not talk pages. I find it difficult to tolerate talk-page politicians, long-winded, droning-on arguments about who is and isn't civil or what is and isn't right. I don't much care for dragging up past history or picking over old wounds, settling old scores, snivelling about perceived wrongs, folks who attack others without even noticing they're doing it, pages and pages of rehashing arguments and having the last word. I can/could do/probably have done some/all of those things and more but I am not perfect and am aware when I do it. This project should be trying to retain editors who contribute decent content for the reader, not those who persist in looking for the worst in others, making assumptions and telling others how to behave. As far as attracting new editors I'd steer them right away from talk pages and encourage them towards content. Content beats politics any day in my book and if the balance swings towards politics that's when I'll look for the exit." —J3Mrs (talk) 2:16 pm, 11 October 2014.