Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Callanecc

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Use third-level headers for new sections. Example: === Heading title ===. Unsure about the election process? Please review the election rules. Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions? Please notify an election volunteer.	Be civil No personal attacks Refrain from canvassing and harassment Discuss the election, or ask questions here
v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2015 candidate: Callanecc Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Hi @Callanecc: Really like your upbeat tone, thanks for that, as well as your service.

1. Re Having been an arbitration clerk for so long I've got a fairly good idea at the internal machinations of the Committee (although some still drive me nuts) - What are your Top 5 nut drivers, and wotchagonnado?
2. Re I've also developed some ideas on what I don't think it working and what I could do to change them. - Share please?

Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeoRomero, thanks.

1. Things which drive me nuts:
   • This one came up very recently. The procedure on withdrawn case requests, I believe, is overly bureaucratic and prevents arbitrators and clerks from taking the most appropriate action. In this request, for example, it was blatantly obvious that it should be sent to AE but it had to sit there for 24+ hours to meet the requirement. I'd get rid of it and replace it with an internal clerk procedure to bring withdrawn requests to the attention of the Committee on the mailing list and ask what to do.
   • This is one I've discussed with a couple arbs before but didn't end up going anywhere. Remedies which have been superseded are struck out on the main case page and the replacement it put down the bottom of the page. Instead I'd collapse the superseded remedy and put it's replacement right below it (with a header which identifies it as an amendment).
   • Another one I've discussed with a couple arbs before but didn't end up going anywhere. Currently the scope of cases is sometimes quite difficult to work out. I'd like to create a section for editors to propose brief statements of scope in the case request and when the case is opened the drafter(s) either pick one or write their own and put it on the main case page and in the notice that goes out to people who comment.
   • The Audit Subcommittee, (note I am/was a community appointee) see this (long) comment I made about it in September. "wotchagonnado": see this - assign a couple arbs to investigate reports and hand their findings to the Committee for action if necessary.
   • That's all I can think of at the moment.
2. Primarily see the above, let me know if you want more detail. I should say though, that the fact that I've got them here doesn't necessarily mean that I will or will be able to do anything about them if I am elected (there are 14 other people, new responsibilities to get used to and heaps of stuff to get done). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Callanecc: I went a little cross-eyed over your insider terms, and did read the internal clerk procedure you recommended, so now my eyes are permanently crossed. I don't know which will serve Wikipedia better, your expertise or your commitment to service, but I'm betting on both. - LeoRomero (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see Callanecc running. He/she seems to have his/her head screwed on. Deb (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

linus torvalds created a community of programmers working on the linux kernel 1991. the community grew since then to nowadays 5'000 commits a month, 5 times more than 10 years ago. alone the linux kernel mailing list receives more than 20'000 messages a month, 3 times more than 10 years ago. innovative technologies are added to the kernel first from universities, individuals, companies, bearing the GPL. what do you see as the key success factors of that development, and what can you take off that into your work at wikipedia? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar at all with the linux community however after having a brief look it appears that there are a few important factors to consider. The linux community primarily relies on subject matter experts and really only includes them, whereas Wikipedia relies on crowdsourcing, really mass crowdsourcing, ("anyone can edit") which brings in a huge range of other issues. And they are issues which have a massive effect, consider, for example, the problems we continually have to deal with around POV pushing alone, which isn't as much of a problem for linux. Another big difference is that the people working on the linux kernel are experts whereas Wikipedia and the WMF encourage new editors, a bunch of whom are not experts in the content or in the operation of a crowdsourced encyclopedia or on MediaWiki. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer but is there any reason for you and nearly every other candidate responding so far, bar one, didn't follow the instructions and move this duplicated question from their talk pages to their question pages? @Casliber:@GorillaWarfare:@Hawkeye7:@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:@Kelapstick:@MarkBernstein:@Opabinia regalis:@Wildthing61476: Yes, responsiblity time! --Riverstogo (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

beats me. Not enough pie for someone. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was no need to move it (where is that instruction, by the way) as it doesn't really matter where it gets asked if there'll be an answer anyway (and WP:NOTBURO)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]