User:Heimstern/ACE2013

Candidates

AGK: Hasn't quite been the white knight I'd hoped for, and have been a little concerned with having something of a brush-off approach to some people. Still, a generally sensible Arb as Arbs go, so unless a slew of great candidates show up (which seems about as likely as a flying pig marathon occurring across the snow-capped hills of hell), this will be a support.

Arthur Rubin: Editor was sanctioned in the Tea Party case, and I've not seen any evidence this was ill-deserved (though certainly at least one sanction given in that case was ill-deserved). Like Bishzilla, I can't say his suggestion to topic ban KillerChihuahua seemed right, furthermore, he also indirectly called her an offensive epithet[1]. So, this one's an oppose.

Beeblebrox: Neither outstanding nor horrible. Not ready to support, but not sure I'll oppose, either.

Bwilkins: Oppose. After his block of PumpkinSky, it's questionable whether he should even be an admin, let alone an arb (he blocked him whilst edit warring with him). Enjoys enforcing the civility policy whilst being unwilling to follow it himself.

DavidGerard: I have never once seen any indicator that DavidGerard ever believes he could possibly be wrong. He comports himself in an arrogant fashion that is wholly unsuited for the committee. Oppose. (And by the way, this has basically nothing to do with any of the stuff concerning the Manning case, which I didn't follow very closely. It's a greater pattern of behaviour.)

Floquenbeam: No-nonsense straight shooter. Doesn't mess around with civility drama and will consider baiting properly. Support.

Gamaliel: This did not impress me. Yes, it was two years ago, but still, someone with a willingness to edit war is not the kind of person I'd want on ArbCom, which has to pass sanctions for such behaviour. At this point, it's an oppose unless I can be convinced this is a thing of the past.

Georgewilliamherbert: Inactivity is probably sufficient reason to oppose in this case; even without that, I've generally found him overly block-happy on the civility issue in the past. Oppose.

Guerillero: Supported last year. Expect I'll most likely do the same this year.

Isarra: Will need to determine if the preference is for cherry, apple, pumpkin, lemon meringue, something else, all of the above etc.

Kraxler: I really want to support a non-admin. And I really want to support a content contributor. But looking at the answers Kraxler has given just don't convince me that he understands what the committee has to deal with. I just can't see a support here. Leaning neutral at this point.

Kww: I was really and truly impressed by the decisive and calm way in which he showed the WMF who's boss here over the VE issue. I'm not sure how germane that is to arb work, though. I also continue not to be a fan of his approach to civility, which seems overly whack-a-mole to me.

NativeForeigner: It could be really nice to have a relative outsider join the committee, and his answers to questions seem clueful and thought-out. ReaperEternal's endorsement is also a good sign for me. I'm leaning support at this point.

RegentsPark: Spectacularly unimpressed by his most recent unblock of Darkness Shines, in that it was done while the blocking admin objected and without achieving consensus. His comments in this thread suggest that he considers this "no big deal". POV warriors in contentious areas, including the India-Pakistan, are anything but no big deal, and I find such an attitude greatly undesirable in an arb, since the committee needs to be the final stopgap in dealing with such people. ~~Still, one vote mightn't kill the committee. I will have to think about this one.~~ Wrote those previous sentences when there was still a candidate shortage. At this point, support is completely out of the question. I do think there are lots worse than him here, so I'm debating whether this is neutral or oppose.

Richwales: Running on a civility platform leaves me wary of another bad words cop. We've had enough of those on ArbCom. Intend to ask him a question to try to figure out where exactly he stands.

Roger Davies: Not the worst incumbent one could get, though five years is an awfully long time to be serving. Will think.

The Devil's Advocate: Gets involved in lots of ANI drama, and I can't think of even one time I thought it was helpful. I can't tell sometimes if he really thinks his criticisms are valid or if he just criticizes for criticism's sake. And this was just plain ridiculous and insensitive, as was his subsequent snipe when called out on it. Nowhere near suitable for any position of trust on Wikipedia. Oppose.