User talk:Biblioworm/ACE 2016

Careerist?

I don't know if you were suggesting I'm a careerist, but if so, it's simply not the case. I never planned or wanted to be involved with ArbCom. When I became a clerk in late 2009 it was because I was invited out of the blue, and I resigned in early 2012. I stayed away from AE, ARCA, and ArbCom cases. I only ran because I was asked to by Bishonen and encouraged by others.[1] This year I told several people I wasn't going to run again. I only decided to on the last day because there were only 7 candidates (and fortunately false rumours of a possible very last minute slate). There were 8 by the time I managed to post my statement. Not the actions of someone who sees ArbCom as a career. In any case, so far as I'm concerned, it's more of a sacrifice - and exposes me even more to the sort of off-Wiki harassment I received because I was an Arb. By the way, we both want change, we just see different paths to change. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually that's not quite right. I supported some of your suggestions. Obviously not the peanut gallery thing, but that was on the grounds that the participation of non-parties has been useful, something some of the other current and former Arbs said. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You did tentatively support AE reform and opening up the process of proposing motions. Support for those two proposals seems to be quite widespread, which is great. But I consider streamlining the ArbCom process to be perhaps the most important issue. Cases often have no direction, the bureaucracy delays cases for weeks, and the discussion pages become mudslinging battlegrounds. The times that third-party opinions are actually rational, dispassionate analyses are quite rare; most of the time, third-party statements are angry rants defending or attacking one or more parties, and do not add anything valuable to the discussion. Most third-party "commentators" are either friends or enemies of at least one of the case parties, and that is why they are motivated to comment on the case. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 20:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

DeltaQuad

Biblioworm I'm rather surprised by your view of DeltaQuad, given some of her recent reform efforts. The most substantial change of this ArbCom, in my opinion, is DeltaQuad's attempts to start up a regular conference call of arbitrators to efficiently work through issues. See Doug Weller's statement for some detailed explanation of DQ's efforts. Obviously, I respect your opinion, but I think DQ warrants a second look. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The conference calls were a good idea, but they could easily be continued regardless of who is or is not on the committee. DQ's answers were decent, overall, but I still have too many concerns to move to the support column, such as reelecting too many incumbents and encouraging "perpetual arbitrators." It is my preference to give more leverage to the fresh-blood "change candidates" that I more strongly support. I respect your view as well, but I think my decisions have been made. Of course, I am more than willing to work with any arbitrator that is reelected, so as to get important changes passed. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 21:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)