User:Kurtis/ArbCom Elections 2012
Initial rationales
[edit]| Candidate | Comments | Inclination | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beeblebrox | Damn. This is probably the single toughest call in the whole election thus far. There are some huge strong points in Beeblebrox's favour, but they are also offset by a number of serious concerns over his ability to remain impartial, a trait that is of paramount importance to being an arbitrator.
When I started reviewing this candidacy, the first thing I felt compelled to look at was his RfB from July of this year, in which I abstained after initially supporting due to concerns raised in the oppose column. What persuaded me into withdrawing my support was his username block of Ianmattoch. There was nothing about it that violated the relevant policies, and although the case could be made for blocking it as a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest (his userpage was correctly deleted per G11), it still seemed like a pretty hasty block to make for someone who is new to the site. But one lapse in judgment is not enough to oppose anyone over, at least not in my books. Moving on from that, I went through and investigated the other oppose rationales to see if something popped up which could hint at his future performance as an arbitrator. They've made some very good points, and I think many of the things discussed there need to be re-examined when considering his ArbCom candidacy. Probably the most prominent issue raised at Beeblebrox's bid for bureaucratship was his handling of the recent Pending Changes RfC, which he'd drafted and submitted for community input. I decided to go ahead and read further into it, so as to get an idea of why people took issue with his involvement there. It didn't take long for me to get the impression that Beeblebrox has a pretty strong bias in favour of pending changes, and it shows in the formatting of the page. Look closely at how he arranged each of the three position points:
It is definitely worrisome that something which should have been written in a neutral tone was basically presented as Beeblebrox's own proposed implementation of pending changes. I am left to wonder whether this is a sign of things to come were he made into an arbitrator, where he skews discussions in such a way as to lean people more towards his point of view rather than formulating their own. And yet, something else catches my eye in that RfC which I think is very relevant to whether or not we should support this candidacy — Beeblebrox is amazing at getting his point across. He not only makes excellent arguments, but he focuses on them like a hawk, never waivering or getting lost in the little details along the way. When he has to use a lot of words, none of them are wasted on irrelevant, trivial matters; they are incisive and get straight to the point. There's a reason over 300 people signed on to his proposal, and not just because the RfC appeared to be a bit biased; he had a great idea, and he knew how to sell it. Yes, pending changes has a lot of support to begin with, but its hypothetical implementation is a bit shaky. Beeblebrox laid out a solid foundation for how to do things, and people genuinely agreed with it. We need arbitrators with a creative approach to solving problems, and that is exactly what Beeblebrox would bring to the table. However, there are still a number of other details which give me pause. First, there's the issue of temperament. I think Beeblebrox sees this one coming from a mile away. Yes, there are definitely times when his mouth gets the better of him. These are personal attacks, even if there is truth to what he's saying, and I'm never a fan of name-calling. I hope those are just isolated incidents in what is otherwise a strong track record on the civility front. That being said, aside from those remarks, I do find that Beeblebrox tends to speak his mind regardless of how anyone else might take his views — and actually, I have huge respect for that. I don't want to elect people who are afraid of speaking the truth if others would disagree with them. I want people who pride themselves on being honest and forthright in their opinions. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean calling someone "an asshole", but just speaking in such a way where the point still gets across without any undue harshness. In short, we need people who are assertive. But there is a fine line between that, and being impatient. Beeblebrox might tread this line at times, and I hope he can reign it in if he winds up being elected this year. The last thing to note from his RfB is the fact that he closed an RM for Côte d'Ivoire by moving the page to Ivory Coast — without any real consensus to do so. It is alarming that he would act in such a way, in essence putting his own views above those held by a large segment of people. It ended with a very contentious move review, itself ending in no consensus. This is the single biggest concern I have about his suitability for the role, as we have had arbitrators in the past who've acted against the community's wishes. From my own observations, it never ends well. While this was a more dubious case, I do think he should have extended the deadline or even considered closing it as no consensus, rather than trying to find a clear-cut "yes or no" answer to the request. The only reason I'm not compelled to oppose based on this move is because it seems to be an isolated incident, in that I don't know of any other circumstance where Beeblebrox was less than sacrosanct in closing contentious discussions. I also feel as though he would go out of his way to avoid such a situation again, which mitigates this particular issue somewhat. I've spoken to Beeblebrox before and he's a really great guy. Sure, he's sarcastic and blunt at times; "what you see is what you get" is to Beeblebrox what "desolate, frigid, and cold" is to Antarctica. But he cuts through crap and calls a spade a spade — in spades. He will do what is right, not necessarily what is easy. So even though I'm left with some questions about his ability to remain calm under pressure and be impartial, I just feel like he has so much to offer as a fresh perspective on the committee that it outweighs any shortcomings he may have. Therefore, I support Beeblebrox's candidacy and wish him the best of luck in these upcoming elections. |
 Support
| |||
| Carcharoth | Before I even begin, let me start off by saying that I am a huge fan of Carcharoth, and I always have been. Of all the candidates running in the 2008 elections, my support for him may well have been the most emphatic one I gave to anyone (and holy accelerated passage of time, Batman — it's been four years since those elections took place). I remember being somewhat surprised and even a bit disheartened when I saw people opposing him for reasons I would not come to fully comprehend until much later on. At the time, I viewed his leniency and steadfast adherence to policy in a favourable light; I never perceived either trait as having undesirable ramifications if used in the wrong circumstances. I could not imagine there being any potential downsides to electing Carcharoth as a member of the Arbitration Committee.
Of course, a vote in favour of any candidate vying for their first stint on ArbCom is essentially a shot in the dark. The only thing anyone had to go by in Carcharoth's case was his track record as an editor and administrator up to that point, which generally involved mediating disputes at AN/I and extensive participation in policy discussions. But today is different. We now have more than just adminship and content creation when judging Carcharoth's suitability for the role. He has already demonstrated his skills in the field, giving us a clear idea of what to expect from him as an arbitrator. Carcharoth's initial mandate lasted for two years, from January 2009 through to December 2010. In that time, we were given the opportunity to gauge his participation in ArbCom related matters, ascertain his voting tendencies, and generally develop a more elucidated perspective on his overall contribution to the committee. It was at some point during this period that I began to notice a number of Carcharoth's idiosyncracies, and the extent to which they visibly impacted the arbitration process as a whole. Therein lies the rub — while his judgment has always been demonstrably sound and his insight impeccable, he also had a certain propensity towards prolonging things so far beyond the bounds of reason that it stinted ArbCom's effectiveness at getting the job done. Carcharoth was simply far too verbose in situations where it was not warranted, too meticulous in even the most clear-cut of scenarios, and all too often placed process at a higher priority than principle. There were many occasions where his unwavering focus on accounting for every miniscule triviality led to extended deadlines, motions being placed on the back burner, and the metamorphosis of straightforward discussions into convoluted reflections on the appropriateness of any given ArbCom initiative. The hard fact is that we need an efficient Arbitration Committee, one that will adjudicate difficult cases with fair rulings within a reasonable timeframe. Carcharoth made many sensible decisions — it's just that he took too long to make them. While my opinion of him as a fellow Wikipedian has not diminished in the slightest since 2008, I am nonetheless convinced that ArbCom is not the most suitable venue for him. Carcharoth's strengths lie more in content creation, administrative work, and outreach activities than they do in dispute resolution. |
 Oppose
| |||
| Coren | Coren is someone who has been around a long time and made a name for himself not by virtue of content contributions or vandal fighting, but through heavy involvement in the administration of the site. This is not something I hold against him, and I don't like this idea that there should be some sort of hierarchy based on the distribution of someone's edits; we need people of all different varieties, from the meticulous article writer to the steadfast anti-vandal brigade. Coren does work that is essential to the functioning of this site, and he does it well. For that, I have total respect for him. That said, I cannot support him this time around.
Coren ran his first successful bid for ArbCom back in December 2008, landing himself a one-year term with just over 63% in support. I opposed his candidacy at the time, with the sentiment that he was "A tad too prone for drama for my tastes." In the months following his election, I began to have a very high opinion of him as an arbitrator, to the point where I'd even left a barnstar on his talk page in recognition of all the hard work he'd put into making the site a better place. I also admitted that the real reason I opposed him was for a comment on AN/I that I found to be provocative, but as it turns out, he wasn't even the person who'd actually made it (I don't remember exactly what had been said, or who said it — and I have no intention of exposing them publicly in this forum if I do find out). Several months later, I posted there again reiterating my confidence in him as an arbitrator and pledging to support his re-election bid, which garnered him an additional two years on the committee with 70% of the vote (third place overall). In my opinion, he continued to perform exceptionally well throughout 2010; however, by 2011 things started to change. Specifically, in the Rodhullandemu case, he made comments that were flat-out aggressive, [1][2][3] and refused to recuse when he had been asked to do so by a broad segment of the community (although he subsequently acquiesced after being pressured to do so). The whole situation regarding the desysop was poorly handled to begin with, but his involvement only made things worse. Since this is practically the polar opposite of the temperament we'd grown accustomed to seeing from Coren, only one conjecture made sense to me at the time and in retrospect — burn out. For the second half of the year, his activity levels declined and he'd become more of a casual presence than an active influence on the committee. I opposed him in 2011 because I thought he was just too stressed out to effectively handle another round on the committee. To quote myself from last year:
The two most pressing issues in analyzing Coren's suitability this time around are whether he is active enough to make decisions that reflect the best interests of the community, and if he has had enough of a breather to once again take on the arduous task of being an arbitrator. While the latter point is open for debate, I don't think anyone would disagree that Coren has not been very active in 2012. As others have mentioned, he has made only five actual mainspace edits since the start of the year (as of this writing), but even more concerning is that half the time he doesn't even make a single edit in a month! Check out his editing statistics for more on that. I cannot in good conscience elect someone to a seat with a fixed term if there is no guarantee that they'll be active for most of that time. I'm sorry, but as with last year, there are just too many concerns for me to feel comfortable supporting.
|
Oppose
| |||
| Count Iblis | I would like to take this moment to congratulate Count Iblis on receiving the Kurtis's Choice Award for Most Interesting Platform of ACE2012 — something which I did admittedly make up on the spot approximately 10 seconds ago (as of this writing), but it remains a highly prestigious accolade nonetheless (in my head, at least). Everyone, please give a round of applause for Iblis! =D
*Imaginary peanut gallery cheers the Count's magnificent achievement* For more on that subject, check out his statement and the Reform Party he founded. Anyways, I really like Count Iblis from what I've seen of him. He's a very helpful presence at both the science and mathematics reference desks, which are where most of his recent contributions have been. Another positive in my books is that he probably understands the Randy in Boise complex better than most people, given his participation in physics-related articles and user conduct discussions. But my concern is that he will almost certainly be excessively lenient towards vested contributors if their content contributions are decent enough. What we really need are people with both a strong proficiency in their areas of interest (preferrably based on actual academic credentials) and a willingness to edit collaboratively rather than aggressively. I get the sense that he would too often err on the side of completely exhonerating "the unblockables", editors whose otherwise stellar contributions are offset by a glaring lack of collegiality, but who cannot be blocked without huge drama breaking out over it. Believe it or not, civility enforcement is perhaps the most polarizing debate for our entire community; we need a committee that will be able to take a very reasoned and ethical approach to such disputes, unencumbered by bias towards any particular clique, and will make decisions based on thorough research of the context and reflection on what must be done in order to maximize the quality of editorial output for all involved. We do not need "civility police", but we do need those who value WP:CIVIL as one of the five pillars this site was founded on. I suppose this is more based on an overall "gut feeling" than something I can actually prove through references, but it remains a good chunk of my rationale for opposing him. The other more obvious red flag is his explicit endorsement of fellow candidate YOLO Swag for a seat on ArbCom. He is barely even active and has engaged in extremely disruptive activity throughout his tenure as an editor. Frankly, he's lucky not to have been indefinitely blocked for the things he's done. The fact that Count Iblis considers him a suitable candidate for the role leads me to question whether he is a good judge of character. To sum it all up, he's an indispensible asset to Wikipedia with a well informed perspective on science-related matters (and we need much more of that), but I just don't think he's the right man for the job. |
Oppose
| |||
| David Fuchs | Although I'd seen his name around plenty of times before, my first direct interaction with David Fuchs was back in August of this year. He took it upon himself to give my article a peer review after I'd requested one. His response was very thorough, straightforward, honest, and polite — it was clear he'd done a full review (as opposed to skimming through the page), and the suggestions he'd made were very useful to me. As a review, it was constructive and accurate in outlining what I (or anyone else interested in editing the article) could do to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the topic from there. Another more recent example of his analytical skills would be the peer review he gave for the "List of songs recorded by Selena" article.
Back in 2010, I opposed David Fuchs's candidacy because of his blanket opposition at several RfAs for "a lack of audited content contributions." Check virtually any RfA where he was in the oppose column (participation gauged here) and his explanation as to why he votes that way for more on that subject. I do disagree with his opinion that audited content contributions should be a prerequisite for adminship (although it is preferrable), so there is a bias on my part, but blanket opposition of any sort never bodes well for me. Either way, he wound up getting elected to a two-year term with roughly 63% of the vote, and he's actually done a pretty decent job as an arbitrator. He doesn't really push the envelope all that much or anything, but he does speak his mind and the things he says are very insightful. The only real concern here is the fact that his activity dropped significantly over the past year. It is now uncommon for David Fuchs to make more than 100 edits in a month. Nevertheless, he is still very much a presence on ArbCom, and I don't get the sense that he's really become all that detached from the mindset of the community (plus, he recently brought an article to featured status, so he still does some stellar content work). He may not be one of the more prominent members the committee, but he's done a very good job and we need arbitrators with a solid foundation in article writing. I support re-electing him for another term. |
Support
| |||
| Elen of the Roads | When Elen of the Roads first ran for ArbCom back in 2010, she was barely into her second month as an administrator (see her successful RfA from October of that year — I'm proud to have been the 26th supporter). I voted in favour of Elen's election despite her relative inexperience at the time, based on what can only be described as sort of a "gut feeling". Apparently I wasn't the only one; she got elected to a two-year term with nearly 73% of the vote! Now that we have seen her in action on the committee, we have the means to gauge Elen's suitability for the role based on actual observations, rather than the aforementioned "gut feelings" that I and many others had picked up within less than an optimal period of time.
Overall, Elen of the Roads is a pretty low-key arbitrator. She participates in voting and makes very insightful comments there, but doesn't really do much beyond that in her capacity as an arbitrator (insofar as what can be inferred from the information that is available to the public). The only two cases where she served as the de facto drafter were the Monty Hall problem debacle and the Tree shaping conduct review — the latter being cited in this very election as an example of a case that dragged on for far too long. Another concern is the fact that her fellow arbitrators saw fit to call her out over an ill-advised block she made on a bot account operated by Rich Farmbrough via an official Finding of Fact and Remedy in the aforementioned user's case; not an egregious lapse in judgment or anything, we all make mistakes, but I thought it should be noted here. On the other hand, she certainly has contributed a lot to the arbitration process in her capacity as a regular editor: a prime example of this is the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu case, where she went out of her way to provide as much relevant information as possible on the evidence page. She is also an excellent administrator, checkuser, and oversighter whose activities at SPI warrant special commendation. One thing I will say about Elen that I feel has relevance to this election is the fact that she is a paradigm of impartiality and good sense. This reflection on civility is absolutely brilliant, even if it is written in a slightly more colloquial tone than what many would associate with her or other members of the Arbitration Committee. Her recent comments at the Civility enforcement clarification request give me an even greater degree of confidence that she gets it. I'm glad that we have someone on the committee as even-handed as her. I love Elen of the Roads. She's smart, friendly, insightful, funny as hell, and experienced. She may not be in the business of taking on a leadership role at ArbCom, but her insight and good humour are much appreciated, and she generally does get it right in most cases. From a tactical standpoint, it may be unwise of me to support Elen for yet another term because there are other candidates who I would prefer to be given a seat on the committee this time around, and I have a feeling that she is going to be re-elected — but as I said before, I'm not doing tactical voting here. My support goes out to quality candidates, regardless of whether or not they ultimately wind up on ArbCom. So I guess I'll just give my seal of approval to Elen and see where the chips fall. |
Support
| |||
| Guerillero | Among other positive traits I've observed in him over time, I find Guerillero to be among the most approachable and considerate people I've met on Wikipedia. His answers to the questions posted at his candidacy (in particular the ones asked by Rschen7754 and SirFozzie) reflect an erudite perspective on the core issues that Wikipedia faces, and also demonstrates an ability to be both straightforward and thorough at the same time — a rare and incredibly desirable combination. I love his idea of fleshing out the BASC into a more community-based process, and I also agree with his platform of applying limited sanctions in lieu of indefinite ArbCom bans. I think it would be a very good idea to elect Guerillero to the Arbitration Committee. |  Strong Support
| |||
| Jc37 | The biggest cause for concern with Jc37 is an ArbCom case he filed this past October against Bishonen. To give a basic synopsis: Jc37 fully protected Penyulap's talk page shortly after he was blocked indefinitely. Bishonen unprotected just over a month later after privately being asked to do so by Penyulap himself.[4] By all accounts, she had sent Jc37 an email about her intentions but he refused to acknowledge it, thus giving her more impetus to act. After she unprotected Penyulap's talk page, Jc37 immediately brought the issue to her doorstep, making clear his disdain for off-wiki discussion of sysop actions and demanding she reinstates the protection. Bishonen explained to him that she considers it poor form to discuss such matters in public, and several people came to voice their support for her action. After a heated discussion on her talk page where he reiterated his demands several times over (referring to her private discussions with Penyulap as "backroom dealings"), Jc37 takes the ordeal to ArbCom, describing Bishonen's decision to reverse his protection as "wheel warring" and demanding a full review of her conduct (see here for more details). And that was it — no AN/I post, no RfC, nothing at DRN or WP:3O, not even any real attempt to find common ground with Bishonen. He just up and hauled the whole affair straight to ArbCom, the last resort of dispute resolution. It was unanimously declined by the committee and denounced by a broad segment of the community (myself included). To this day, he has never once even acknowledged the possibility that he may have been wrong.
That whole scenario reflects very poorly on Jc37, as it demonstrates a serious lack of both communication skills and good judgment. Not only that, but his knowledge of policy seems very askew — at the aforementioned ArbCom case, I actually made a statement where I quoted the most basic definition of WP:WHEEL:
Bishonen's unprotection was not wheel warring. It was a regular reversal of another administrator's action, something that happens all the time. She went ahead and attempted to discuss it with Jc37 beforehand, but he never even bothered to reply. Transparency issues or no, he could have at least said something to her and this whole thing would have been averted. Instead, it wound up snowballing into a massive dramafest that wasted the time of all involved. There are also some questions about his adherence to the principle of AGF, given how frequently he made reference to terms such as "backroom dealings" and "cabal" in describing Bishonen's correspondence with Penyulap. Beyond that, there's the issue of content contributions. ArbCom's mandate is to preside over some very sensitive disputes between editors and make rulings that are to the benefit of the project as a whole. As such, it is imperative that the people we elect have a solid foundation in content creation. Jc37 is more of a "maintenance worker", someone who mostly tackles administrative issues rather than doing any serious editing. This is not in itself a bad thing by any means, but I want arbitrators who are particularly well-rounded. I also want to elect people who will be active on a regular basis throughout their tenure, and Jc37 even says on his userpage that he "has periods of inactivity without warning." Not a good sign for someone wanting to be an arbitrator. Make no mistake about it, there's a reason I strongly supported Jc37's RfB from earlier this year, and I still have an overall positive impression of him. He is not one to shy away from making difficult decisions or stirring the pot, and I'm glad we have someone like him around. But ArbCom requires much more than just being bold — there's a certain finesse that is part and parcel of being an arbitrator, and I'm afraid I don't see that in Jc37. I have no choice but to oppose his candidacy. |
Oppose
| |||
| Jclemens | I know that this issue has already been beaten to death by virtually everyone discussing Jclemens's candidacy, but his notorious "[Malleus is] not a Wikipedian" comment from the Civility Enforcement Clarification request irritated the living hell out of me. Look, I understand why people take issue with Malleus; even though I personally have never had any particularly negative interactions with him, I've observed his participation at RfA over the years and it has been concerning. But like the guy or no, he is an active editor and a member of our community — he is a Wikipedian. It's as simple as that. And this explanation just doesn't cut it for me.
Jclemens successfully ran for ArbCom in 2010 and again in 2011 — I opposed him on both occasions. In my 2011 guide, I initially stated my intent to go neutral because although I had a "gut feeling" which compelled me to oppose him the year prior, I had not seen anything since which would convince me that Jclemens was not suited for the job. However, I subsequently read through Wizardman's oppose rationale at his own 2011 guide, and the concerns he highlighted were enough to sway me back into the oppose column. He just seemed too eager to implement overly harsh sanctions against constructive contributors. In particular, the idea that he considered it to be "a shame" for nobody to have supported stricter remedies than those proposed with regards to Orangemarlin in last year's abortion case made me feel very uncomfortable. Furthermore, looking into Jclemens's resume for this election actually caused me to remember the real reason I opposed him the first time around in 2010. It was more than a "gut feeling", it was an actual RfC regarding his use of rollback to mass revert another editor's AfD votes based on a userbox they had made. Most people participating did not support an outright desysop, but it did establish a consensus that there were some concerns with his overall use of the sysop tools. Beyond that, I recall having gotten a general impression even prior to his RfC that Jclemens was oftentimes too rigid in his views; I can't find any specific examples to back this up, unfortunately (although I did look for some), but I know I did develop that feeling over time. I was quite surprised that Jclemens got elected in 2010 and even more so when he was re-elected in 2011, given how many concerns materialized during his previous two candidacies. This time I don't think he's going to be anywhere near the 50% threshold required for ArbCom membership. I'm sorry to say this, because I do admire how forthright he is (especially in his candidate statement this year) and he does get it right every now and then — this gem of a comment is simple, straightforward, and bang-on — but Jclemens is simply far too divisive to be part of Wikipedia's most influential group of editors. |
 Strong Oppose
| |||
| Keilana | First, I want to take this opportunity to convey how extraordinarily grateful I am to Keilana for founding the women scientists WikiProject. Women have always been horribly underrepresented in all fields of science and mathematics, something which I attribute more to historical perceptions of gender roles than a natural disinclination of female mindsets towards such logic-based subjects. The fact that we have a task force dedicated to providing extensive coverage on the numerous brilliant women in history and showcasing such individuals as Marie Curie, Ann Bishop, Dorothy Hodgkin, and Rosalind Franklin is very reassuring to me as an staunch feminist that Wikipedia can in effect encourage many intelligent girls out there with an interest in the sciences to pursue their passions. Perhaps idealistic and contrary to the true purpose of the site (i.e. a neutral encyclopedia that anyone can edit), but I am nonetheless proud of this WikiProject, which I consider to be a monumental achievement for the Wikipedia community as a whole.
Anyways, back to Keilana specifically. She has been an editor since 2007, almost six years now, and an administrator for most of that time. Aside from a two-year hiatus, she's been pretty active throughout her tenure as a Wikipedian. She has extensive experience in the three areas I consider most relevant to ArbCom's mandate: dispute resolution, content contributions, and policy discussion. From her answers to the questions thus far, she strikes as someone who will not enter into any case with preconceived notions about how to handle it; in other words, she will review the evidence thoroughly and examine its context rather than just skimming through its content. There is no "one size fits all" remedy, and every case is unique — I'm glad she recognizes this. On a more personal note, I've had a few brief but pleasant interactions with Keilana in the past and consider her to be one of the single most friendly and approachable people I've ever had the opportunity to meet. This is someone who genuinely cares about the community and the project as a whole. I definitely support her for ArbCom! |
Support
| |||
| Ks0stm | Absolutely!
OK, so it seems to me that Ks0stm may not be the biggest vote magnet in this election, which means I should probably elaborate on why I'm so enthusiastic about his candidacy. For starters, just read his answers to the questions! Go on, take your pick — not one single keystroke was wasted on anything other than honest, intelligent discourse. If that alone does not convince you of Ks0stm's suitability for the role, check out his work as an administrator. Go through his Wikipedia space history and find something he didn't handle well, because I'm having a hard time doing so. The only minor issue I can perceive is the fact that he seems to avoid using admin discretion in controversial areas (eg. contentious AfDs), but this also demonstrates that he is not interested in partaking in pointless drama. Although a Wikipedia comprised solely of Ks0stm's would probably not function very effectively, we do need people like him. And although he's not the most prolific content contributor, he does have solid experience in the area, which I find preferable for ArbCom candidates. This is clearly someone with an open mind and an eagerness to learn and grow, a trait I strive for in myself and value immensely in others. He is not given to delusions of grandeur, nor ensnared by his own insecurities — Ks0stm knows his limits, will speak his mind and be bold, all the while without being reckless. He is someone who genuinely cares about other people no matter who they are or what they believe. In short, I am extremely confident that electing Ks0stm to the Arbitration Committee would make Wikipedia as a whole a better place.
|
Support
| |||
| Kww | Last year I opposed Kww for two reasons: his nonchalant attitude towards BLP, and a general impression I got from reading through his candidacy that he may be a bit too brusque for the role. From my 2011 voter guide:
Reading through his answers to the questions this year leads me to doubt that anything has changed since last election. Many of the things he said struck me as somewhat resentful, and I'm starting to wonder whether Kww is the sort of person who is prone to holding grudges. Specifically, in his answer to question #1b (located here), he clearly still feels a certain degree of animosity towards Scott MacDonald for temporarily blocking him back in May 2011 to prevent him from removing flagged revisions from BLP articles without carefully reviewing them beforehand (see this ANI thread for more details). (Note: candidate addresses this point here) The block was questionable and flagged revisions were being phased out at the time, but the fact remains that Kww still went about his business despite some serious concerns raised to him about the possible ramifications of his actions. When taken as a whole, these factors make me wonder if he'll use his position as an arbitrator to further his own viewpoints. To sum it all up, Kww is an excellent administrator and a huge asset to Wikipedia. He works in areas that are considered "necessary evils", defending the principles on which this site was founded, and in that capacity he is quite effective. Despite that, I remain unconvinced of his suitability for ArbCom. |
Oppose
| |||
| Newyorkbrad | Hell yes!
I am so glad to see Newyorkbrad running for re-election. Look, I generally agree with the view that the community ought to appoint new members each year to get some fresh ideas for how things should be run, but Brad is an exception. His reputation for reasoned insight and a nuanced approach precedes him. I will make a point of supporting Newyorkbrad every time he submits himself for another round on the committee (and God have mercy on his soul). He is the most lenient arbitrator we've ever had and I may not always agree with his views, but I am of the opinion that we absolutely need his perspective on ArbCom. |
Strong Support
| |||
| NuclearWarfare | Strongest support ever — How could I possibly oppose the guy who made me a reviewer? =P
Being serious, I like NuclearWarfare and consider him one of our better editors and administrators. He's got plenty of solid content work under his belt, and he knows his way around the bureaucracy. That being said, I'm not 100% behind him in his bid for ArbCom. Aside from my own observations, NuclearWarfare himself openly admits that he is "by no means the most eloquent of people." Good communication skills are the most important trait an arbitrator needs to possess; that isn't to say NuclearWarfare is lacking in social nuances, but there are times when I find he can be a bit terse. Getting straight to the point is one thing; being vapid in tone is another. For me, the fact that he does not intend to answer every single question is somewhat concerning, as I believe arbitrators should be open to discussing any issues brought to them (besides private matters, of couse) even if they go a bit beyond their mandate. I agree with most of his platform and I've always found him to be sensible, but something just doesn't sit well with me. I suspect NuclearWarfare will be elected by a pretty broad margin and I'm sure he'll do fine as an arbitrator, so I don't feel comfortable opposing him either. I hope for the best and wish him good luck in the elections. =)
|
Support
| |||
| Pgallert |
I'm sorry, but as intelligent as I think Pgallert is ( |
Oppose
| |||
| RegentsPark | Right from the moment I first saw RegentsPark's name pop up in the list of candidates, I knew this was going to be an easy support for me. I even said so in the edit summary when I added him to this guide. This is someone with plain good sense and a knack for getting straight to the point without being abrupt or bypassing the important details. For proof of this, just read through his answers to the questions, which I think speak for themselves. Honest, forthright, civil, and sensible — by no means a common combination of traits, all of which encapsulated by RegentsPark.
The only thing that gave me any sort of pause was his handling of the whole Civility enforcement affair back in October, where I think he might have gotten a bit more emotionally vested than he probably should have (see these two links for reference) — but on the other hand, it shows that he has integrity and genuinely cares about how we treat our colleagues. For that, he has also earned my respect. I truly hope RegentsPark gets elected. Wikipedia would be much better off with him as an arbitrator. |
Strong Support
| |||
| Richwales | I'm sold on Richwales. Everything I've read in his statement and answers indicate to me that he will do an excellent job as an arbitrator. Two specific things won me over:
There isn't much more to add here. This is someone with solid experience in both content creation and dispute resolution, and he obviously has a lot to offer as a prospective member of the committee. I strongly support Richwales for ArbCom.
|
Strong Support
| |||
| Salvio giuliano | The quintessential admin's admin, Salvio giuliano does a ton of maintenance work in his capacity as an administrator, checkuser, and oversighter; the only problem is that he comes up short in the realm of content contributions. For me to support someone with such a dearth of article writing experience, I'd have to be very convinced of their suitability for the job. And since Salvio doesn't frequent many of the areas that I tend to gauge, this one's going to be based on his answers to the questions.
Some of the things I've noted:
There are plenty of other especially strong answers to the questions he had been asked, but I just quoted the ones that impressed me the most. What I notice is that Salvio is very meticulous, not one to ignore even the smallest of details, which may in fact be key to understanding the big picture in any given situation. I also like that he is unwavering in his commitment to the principles of WP:BLP, as it demonstrates an ethical approach to an inevitable component of having such a large respository of information. When everything is taken into consideration, I think Salvio would do quite well as an arbitrator, and so I will support him in these elections. |
Support
| |||
| Timotheus Canens | Timotheus Canens is second only to Sandstein in the number of edits made per user to arbitration enforcement. Since he has a slight lack of content contributions (his last substantive mainspace edits were all the way back in November 2009), his work in that field will be scrutinized alongside his answers to the questions in determining whether or not T. Canens should serve on the Arbitration Committee.
|
Support
| |||
| Worm That Turned | Worm That Turned is one of Wikipedia's best administrators. I have tremendous confidence in his judgment, and am particularly impressed with his skills as a mentor for inexperienced users. My comments from last year's guide still stand:
Yet despite all that, I was not sold on Worm That Turned as an arbitrator this year and had to review his candidacy thoroughly before really coming to a decision on whether or not to support him. If he were submitting an RFB, this would be a knee-jerk support; this is an ArbCom candidacy, which involves more than just analyzing consensus and upholding community processes. Worm That Turned is one of the more lenient administrators, and although I don't necessarily oppose on that basis (I'm strongly supporting Newyorkbrad above explicitly because of the ethical viewpoint he brings to the committee), I'm not sure if having more than a few individuals with such a soft mindset is preferrable. Looking over his answers to the questions, I'm left with a greater degree of confidence in Worm That Turned's suitability for the job than I had before. The highlights for me are as follows:
Aside from those examples, his answers are generally solid and straightforward. A few grammatical mistakes here and there, but that's not enough for me to turn him down over. I like his community-based perspective, and I think he has the good sense to know what's best for Wikipedia. I'm supporting Worm That Turned for ArbCom. |
Support
| |||
| YOLO Swag | The last time this user made over 100 edits in a single month was in November 2008 — four years ago. He's been virtually inactive ever since, averaging less than an edit per month. See this page for a quick view of YOLO Swag's editing statistics. I'm usually pretty lenient on the activity front when it comes to RfA, but ArbCom Elections are different. If I'm not confident that someone can fully commit themselves to the role of an arbitrator, then I cannot support them.
There are other reasons why I feel this user is a poor fit for ArbCom. YOLO Swag formerly edited as Certified.Gangsta, then as NWA.Rep (actually, now that I think of it, I opposed him in 2011 as well), yet he makes no mention of this anywhere in his nomination statement. His talk page has no archives and doesn't show any posts besides a warning from Jehochman to avoid edit warring (Note: this post has since been removed; Jehochman's comment can be found here), something for which he has gotten into trouble many times in the past. Not content with what I saw, I decided to check his talk page history to research some of the past discussions that took place there, but I didn't even bother reading past this colourful collection of edit summaries. No, this user is definitely not mature enough for the role. I'm not even sure why he thinks running at all is a good idea, |
Strong Oppose
|
Final vote
[edit]I supported the following candidates in the elections:
 |
|