User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/AC: Difference between revisions

This voting guide seems to be more popular :) than my articles! :(

It agrees mostly with the evaluations by Ealdgyth, Elonka, User:SandyGeorgia, and "token male" Wizardman.

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" ....

The Great Day

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."

William Butler Yeats (1938)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Overview

My recommendations are the following:

Support

Indomitably: Coren, Kirill, and Courcelles.

Mightily: Risker, Roger Davies, Silk Tork, and AGK.

Persuasively: Hersfold, and JClemens

Tactically: Delta Quad

Oppose

Firmly: Worm That Turned (WTT), Geni

Maturely: Eluchil404, Panyd, and KWW

Obviously: NWA.Rep and Hot Stop. (Of course, my opposition suggests that WTT, Eluchil404, Panyd, and KWW should also withdrawal.)

Comments

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

Understanding and curiosity

• 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

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

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

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.

Last year, the new administrator Elen of the Roads had already flourished off-Wikipedia and on-Wikipedia; acting with the other leaders at ArbCom, she has performed exceptionally well on the committee.

Evaluation of Candidates

Support

Indomitably

• 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.

• Kirill (Incumbent)

  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.

Mightily

• 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

• Silk Tork (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

• 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 ...

On second thought, JClemens is a reasonable and collaborative ArbCom member. He is not afraid to clarify (alter) his public position when new information comes along. He does not seem to be seeking power or to enjoy the use of administrative/ArbCom sanctions, which is a merit this year, so much so that I do support his re-election.

Tactically

• 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.

Oppose

"Friend, though hast no business here", said the Quaker as he pushed the pirate back over the ship's railing. ;)

Firmly

Worm That Turned's DYK "blamed" increasing pork-prices on BLT sandwiches (pictured).

Writing 4 DYKs and 2 GAs on bacon-topics earned WTT the 2011 Bacon WikiCup (pictured).

• Worm That Turned (WTT).

I firmly oppose Worm That Turned, who has pushed his personal issues with passionate intensity & frequent tunnel-vision and occasional clumsiness, (1) pushing Bacon onto the main page and (2) supporting partisan RfCs flawed with cherry-picked diffs:

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 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 spectral analysis, but then farmers would strategically adapt and presumably eliminate the arbitrage.)

  My guess? Perhaps WTT read about an alleged "BLT-price bump" from the blogs of the bacon-enthusiast community? Perhaps he went hunting for a reliable source, and found the Telegraph article? (I suspect that the Telegraph writers forgot to remove their private joke from the article before their editor published it!)

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

I've had a long-running conflict with a friend of WTT, who successfully summoned WTT's assistance at ANI, which led to WTT's initiating an RfC-style "mediation" (which he quit after I responded to his charges/complaints: WTT's complaints alleged that I had been "over-zealous towards younger RfA candidates" and that I had been "promoting a hierarchical atmosphere, where some editors are better than others"---I quote from memory. Next, WTT & friend took August, September, & October in drafting the RfC under WTT's leadership. WTT's RfC started with a shock-and-awe section of "issues not to be pursued", which tried to discredit me by quoting editors' complaints; in this section, WTT cherry-picked diffs in a grossly partisan way, ignoring context, and grossly distorting events. Written August-October, WTT's passive-aggressive misrepresentation "shocked" an editor who had criticized me for "POV-pushing for a week until he observed my accomplishments and congratulated my editing, indeed helping me with sources and comments ever since. WTT's RfC continued to misrepresent my editing|, again cherry-picking quotes from me and others out of context and ignoring obvious counter-examples to his claims. Finally, WTT/David accused me of having removed material because of my personal politics: "He feels articles related to certain USA political parties have an "ideological bias", which he solves by removing what he sees as OR/POV in them." This AGF violation was made despite my having restored the deleted material! WTT failed to retract this accusation, despite a euphemistically polite request. His behavior in my RfC suggest that WTT should face strong opposition in this election, imho. "One man's meat is another man's poison": WTT's RfC/U against me RfC/U against me was endorsed by the often sanctioned but always intelligent & forthright William M. Connolly, who has found me to be unhelpful! ;) Finally, despite WTT's involvement, and mocking me with "a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing", WTT used a misleading edit-summary "This should be closed" when he not only closed but also misused the hidden-archive template, to which he attached the cover-up label "User blocked for a week, tangential discussion closed - nothing left to see here; this action violated the prohibition against involved administrators applying the administrators-only hidden archival template.

WTT's discussions remind Badger Drink of middle-school hall-monitors parroting the vice principal's commandments against chewing gum; WTT's frequent moralistic preening and passive-aggressions remind me more of Church Lady, rather. WTT's frenetic welcoming & grooming of new (often child) editors reminds me of student-government politicians befriending kids at band camp: The accumulation of political power comes naturally to some. WTT's passionate intensity---too often expressed with the adversarial aggressiveness of a criminal prosecutor---could be a disaster on ArbCom. On ArbCom itself, one member's brashness and bullheadness would be checked by experienced, mature editors. However, ArbCom members often walk among us; we don't want them to brandish (or swing) their ArbCom billy-clubs, either with the partisanship/clumsiness with which WTT wielded RfCs or with the clumsiness displayed in the articles that won him an earlier trophy, the Bacon Cup. Thus, I strongly oppose the election of Worm That Turned to ArbComm in 2011.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Did You Know

• "... that high autumn pork prices are blamed on Americans eating so many BLTs (pictured) during the summer?"

• At WTT's RfA, BLT ranked 6 among his most edited articles.
• "Well, I'm intently proud of all my contributions.... My other good articles are food and drink related, Clotted Cream, ... and BLT, and I feel all 7 are well written and on interesting topics."
• Yesterday, I removed the assertion, and WTT promptly reinserted it with "rephras(ing) for clarity". Jayron removed the claim, hinting at WP policies (WP:Reliable, and WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) and asking for a talk-page discussion. So far, WTT's behavior seemed to exemplify the "passionate intensity" and bullheadness I previously described.... He "needed to be told" basic WP policy....

  Yet, WTT is more than a brash bacon-enthusiast, and more context is needed, imho. (α) Soon thereafter, WTT proposed correcting the error, and adding the interesting fact that tomato harvests influencing BLT consumption (and perhaps bacon prices). WP is saved! :)

  The Moral of the Story: It would have been unfair for me to cite only WTT's mistakes, etc., without mentioning (α) his proposing a workable solution.

  In my RfC, WTT cherry-picked diffs and provided no context--no alphas (α). At Badger Drink's RfC, WTT condoned the omission of context, until Casliber spoke up.

  Regardless of this election's outcome, I wish that WTT would better understand that fairness and trust-building require providing context for diffs, and not omitting (α) in order to score a conviction, especially at RfC/Us. Indeed, I wish that he and the others at RfA Reform forget about RfCs and even Mediation, and try dealing with editors "where they're at". His candidacy faces my opposition this year. Let us wish that WTT shall earn our support for the next election.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Geni

I was somewhat concerned by the bad block of Malleus F. The diffs given by NW and SandyGeorgia convinced me to oppose.

Maturely

• Eluchil404

  Intemperate and imprudent position in the RfC against Badger Drink, but better than Panyd there.

• Panyd

  Cliche-ridden hysteria at Badger Drink's RfC, with no evidence that BD had chased away anybody. (Good contributions on DYK, etc.)

• KWW.

  Per SandyGeorgia

Obviously

Nobody supports these candidates and most oppose them. :(

• NWA.Rep

• Hot Stop

We should all thank them for volunteering to serve, and we should welcome them to participate in Wikipedia. :)

A Guide to the guides to the guides: Who guides the guiders?

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 that summarizes others, including the 2nd edition of this guide (visible in the page history).
• 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.

Gnu's not Unix

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