Arbitration Committee Election 2022 candidate: Barkeep49
|
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#((ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=))
There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.
strive to improve the project. If something isn't working, I like to try to find ways to improve it... I am open to trying new things, and equally open to admitting when those new things haven't worked. Fundamentally I believe it is important for us to try to do better because we can be better.So yes I was open to trying something new with the at scale case. I would not have supported splitting the RfC during the case and didn't support it when it came up as an amendment. However, because I wanted to give it a fair chance to succeed I simply didn't vote knowing a majority of the committee did support giving the mods discretion to make that change (and because I did support the change around appeals). I think it's too soon to tell if this will do much to help with the conflict it was aimed at solving an so I don't know whether I think it should or shouldn't be in the ArbCom toolkit yet. I will continue to monitor it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Based on the standards I have for myself, this would suggest I am not fit to be adminand
My having a poor, deliberate, bad faith (all words of hers and all unretracted) action on a situation is, in my mind, completely incompatible with the standards I have for myself as a member of this project, especially as an an admin.You blanked the page a few days later [1]. Since you're now running for re-election as an arb, I assume you don't stand by these statements. In hindsight, do you think you would have handled this situation differently? Spicy (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
poor, deliberate, bad faithor the equivilent in the future I think it should trigger my recall process. What I would consider doing differently in the future is I'd be inclined to wait 24 hours in an indirect case (i.e. one where they don't say "I want to see you recalled" but instead characterize my actions in a way that falls short of my standard for myself) and see if they stand by the comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Citing the UCoC when applicable may help to ensure that we are left alone by the U4C.and this is something the committee should keep in mind especially once the U4C comes into existence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for these answers Barkeep49. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)