User talk:Worm That Turned/ACE2015

Thoughts from sitting Arb NativeForeigner

Your comments regarding being on arbcom are a shame, but true. I think I undestimated how much work it would be. There were several things which I really sincerely wanted to do going in, but it would have required moving mountains to get them done, and I just didn't have the energy after drafting, reading, considering, being yelled at, etc. I would advocate candidates to really pursue substantive BASC reform, figure out what they want ausc to be, and have a reasonable position on harassment although I will say that at least my reading of the situation is that should be the community first. But if you are at a time in your life where you really need to value your own time, as I am right now, and you also have some sense of duty to the position (as I'd hope candidates would), don't put your hat in. You'll be constantly pulled between what you need to do for yourself and what you must do for the role. I think I spend less time than the average arbitrator reading and processing information but nonetheless it's still probably over an hour a day, and when drafting the lump sum of hours required can be quite extraordinary. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Also especially noting [1]. It's certainly very worthwhile, and sane individuals do and should run! But make sure that you have the spare time and resilience. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment from candidate Kevin Gorman

• Kevin, I'm willing to discuss anything further with you - please do feel free to email me, or start a section on my talk page, but from my point of view, you are not coping with this election. The last thing I want to do is make things worse for you in real life, I'm not an arsehole, whatever you may think of me. I have blanked this section, and your section on the candidate guide. Worm^TT(talk) 08:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mistargeted link

@Worm That Turned: In your comments about Gamaliel, you link to "this case request", but that link goes to Gamaliel's candidate page, not to the case request. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Jackmcbarn, I've fixed that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This makes me very sad

I don't generally comment on anyone's personal opinions when it comes to these ACE guides. Everyone has the right to their opinion. But I find myself greatly saddened to see what you have "updated" about GorillaWarfare. Let me make this clear: I do not hold an opinion one way or the other about her personal suitability to be an arbitrator. I do, however, take serious exception to what you have said: "Her activism outside of the committee is generally something I consider incompatible with committee work..." Well hold on there, my friend. I count at least four other current arbitrators who have been quite activist on topics other than gender gap during the time that they have been arbitrators, and at least five current candidates whom you have in your "support" or "neutral" list who have been ardent activists on various subjects, many of them considerably more active in those areas than GorillaWarfare has been on her "area" of activism. It all adds up to "actively working to address the gender gap is bad". It seems it is okay to be a fervent inclusionist or deletionist, it's fine to have spent years advocating to ensure that only specific types of individuals become admins, it's cool to be a star supporter of x or y. Just not gender gap. Or feminism. No, that's a problem for the committee. Well, actually you're right, but not quite in the way you may think. The greatest degree of sexism I experienced on Wikipedia came from Arbcom members when I was working with them on a daily basis. You and I are very familiar with a specific public example of such unconscious sexism, and I'm quite certain the perpetrator still thinks we were all overreacting and being a bit silly; he actually described the situation as "silly" at the time. The reality is that the sexism is so ingrained into the committee that anyone pointing it out is considered a destabilizing factor. I'm just really disappointed that you perceive it as being so problematic that you identify it as the reason to give lukewarm support to a candidate. I don't expect you to change anything. But right there, you've given one of the best examples of the reason women don't bother with the enwiki power structure anymore; why they don't run for adminship, why they are poorly represented in functionary groups, why they don't bother to consider bureaucratship or even stewardship at the Meta level. It's why women don't stay, and those who do tend to have a very thick skin. Risker (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Risker - thanks for bringing this up. I was having a discussion with another editor who believed that I felt that actively working on the gender gap was an issue. My issue is activism while on the committee - not feminism, not working on gender gap, not any other one issue, but active advocacy and agenda pushing. I remember waking up in my first year to seeing an arbitrator stating outright that if they had their way that would have completely vacated a case as it was the wrong decision. Up to that point, I had a lot of respect for that arb, but the way they pushed that POV was not acceptable.
That said, my issue with GorillaWarfare's activism is that I've seen it in context of the committee. I haven't gone looking for it, in her or in any other candidate. You may well be right, that there are other candidates who are activists on other subjects. I advise anyone reading that guide to take into account agendas that arbitrators might have - they can be extraordinarily damaging to the committee.
As for the issue of sexism on the committee, we've had this discussion. I hadn't seen it - because I'm a straight white male who just doesn't notice it - but I certainly wouldn't argue that it's not there. On the other hand, I'm well aware that there is a disparity of male to female members of the committee, and I'm likely to vote for a female candidate over a male, all things being equal. We're extremely lucky to have 3 very good identified female candidates this year and look forward to seeing a more representative committee. Worm^TT(talk) 13:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, that other editor was me, and what I said was that your original opinion was totally unfair. What I said about your amended opinion was that it was clearer - and that I vehemently disagreed with it. It is in clarity terms, an improvement; it is still just as sad a perspective to see an arbitrator have. And if your problem is "not working on the gender gap, but active advocacy" then you have an incredibly naive view of human behaviour. Everything we do is political, whether it is nothing - which reinforces the status quo through ommission - or actively voicing opinions and attempting to convince others, which pushes for change. Working on the gender gap is an extension of advocacy - and so is suggesting that people should give someone the side-eye for holding opinions that deviate from where the world is right now. It's a good thing you're not running or apparently you'd have a really hard time endorsing yourself. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking over this now for a good day or two since I first chatted with Ironholds. You are all right (Ironholds—Risker—Kevin Gorman), the statement there was unfairly targetted at GW, when there are so many other activists who end up on Arbcom, and indeed a number I've supported. @GorillaWarfare:, I don't know if you've been watching this, but I hope you can accept my apology. Don't get me wrong, I still feel that pushing agendas whilst on the committee is one of the most damaging things for an arbitrator to do, but this wasn't the forum to bring it up in - especially as only one person got the brunt of that rant. Worm^TT(talk) 20:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, WTT. I think @Ironholds: put it well, though, when he said "Everything we do is political, whether it is nothing - which reinforces the status quo through ommission - or actively voicing opinions and attempting to convince others, which pushes for change." GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I probably really should not be in this conversation but it interests me that we have a coterie of WMF groupies here, I can't speak for WTT, who has in any event shifted his position, but it absolutely stinks. We're all a product of our environment and this shitty insistence that certain views should predominate might be hippie-idealistic but we are not going to change the world: in sociological terms that takes centuries, not years unless a dramatic series of events intervene (which usually has meant a massive war). Learn it, live it. Those whose primary goal seems nowadays to be social engineering should find some other project and let those whose goal is to create an encyclopaedia get on with the damn job. I am not saying that you should leave the project, obviously, but you've got your priorities very screwed up. Sure, keep attempting to convince but do not make that your main purpose and, sorry., pretty much all WMF groupies seem now to make that their main purpose.

I'm actually becoming more and more intrigued regarding what constitutes charitable status etc in the US because the WMF is clearly deviating from its original purpose. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: My main purpose is to build a quality encyclopedia. Building an environment where that can happen, and where anyone is equally welcome to participate, is a part of that. I don't see that as incompatible with working on this project. As for "social engineering" and "WMF groupies," I have no idea what you're on about. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• WTT, thank you very much for reconsidering the manner in which you have expressed your opinion. I admit I was surprised to see you suggesting that arbitrators advocating for certain actions was suboptimal, as I'd always thought of you as being a fairly activist arbitrator on certain issues (and I agreed with you on at least some of them), but perhaps it is a difference in perspective. Sitush, I have no idea what in heaven's name you are talking about, but the creation of a "welcoming and collegial editorial environment" is a founding principle of the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation. Risker (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pings noted. I am unwell and restricting myself here. As far as I am concerned, anyone who is a WMF apparatchik (sp?) has no place on ArbComn. - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Given that I am the only one involved in this discussion up for election, I assume you are describing me as a "WMF apparatchik"? If that is the case, I'd be very curious to hear why you believe that, as I feel like that's a pretty inaccurate descriptor. Also, I hope you feel better soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Worm: thank you for reconsidering your initial post. Most arbitrators have 'agendas' of one manner or another (that's not a dirty word - it could just be "making arbcom function more smoothly,") and in my experience most serious Wikipedians are also 'activists' in some sense in other areas as well. Sitush, you have very odd definitions of "WMF apparatchiks" and "WMF Groupies." Ironically, even you come with a pretty clear agenda. It's hard to think of a Wikipedian without one - I've been cursed out over manual of style em-dash issues previously, and anyone willing to do that certainly has an agenda (even if it's just really supporting em-dashes.) Of the people even mentioned on this page, only Ironholds and I have ever worked at the WMF. My paid work there was a grand total of two hundred hours. GW, WTT, Risker, etc, have no similar conection. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)