User:Ncmvocalist/ACE2010

WORK IN PROGRESS

2010 Arbitration Committee Elections: Voter log; Contact the coordinators; Discuss the elections; Results

Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides

These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion.

My thoughts on the 2010 ArbCom elections. Format of the page adapted from fellow-voter guides linked above.

Quotes by Wikipedians

I like these quotes. I don't agree with them entirely, but they do represent my philosophy on how some things with Wikipedia are really wrong and need to change. They will be guiding my voting to some extent.

On Administration

JzG was actually a role model for me when I started here, because he had a real knack for seeing through bullshit and grasping the essence of a dispute...I can think of a number of other admins who used to work that way - that is, WP:CIV doesn't mean you have to endlessly tolerate obvious bullshit. Those people are all completely burnt out, if they're still here at all. And they've been replaced by people who are equally high-handed, but without the saving grace of underlying clue - the worst of both worlds. At some point, "the community" made a decision that rudeness was a greater threat to the project than blatantly partisan, agenda-driven, or batshit-crazy editors. Honestly, if you're capable of staying superficially civil (emphasis on "superficially"), avoiding edit-warring, and avoiding sockpuppetry, you can basically stay here indefinitely pushing whatever nonsensical, pernicious crap you choose. The end result is that we constantly hemorrhage good editors when they burn out, but the real bad apples stay with us forever.
— User:MastCell, 04:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My primary criticism of the committee is that it is generally so focused on our conduct policies that it ends up leaving the actual encyclopedia behind. This is a direct consequence of the committee's refusal to adjudicate content disputes combined with the lack of any other available form of binding content dispute resolution. The model in use seems to be that if we keep editors in line with our conduct policies, the content will fall into place. This is absolutely not the case. The idea seems to be based on the entirely false notion that editors with conduct issues and those who advocate inappropriate content on Wikipedia are the same people. Absolutely not so. Wikipedia has many editors highly devoted to neutrality and verifiability who, alas, are also prone to behavioural lapses (often during the course of their attempts to improve or maintain the encyclopedia's neutrality or verifiability), and many highly civil POV pushers. The effect of this conduct-only focus of arbitration is to sanction editors advocating neutrality as harshly, nearly as harshly, or even more harshly than POV-pushers. As an example: two editors enter a long-term edit war over a matter. The one seeking push a POV is exceedingly civil, while the other, who seeks to enforce neutrality and verifiability, lashes out with four-letter words from time to time. In an arbitration case, who will be sanctioned more harshly? That's right: the second, because he violated our conduct policies more. That this is completely wrong and that an editor who compromises the integrity of our articles should always receive more severe sanctions than one who violates conduct policies while seeking to uphold content policies is abundantly clear for both practical and principled reasons, but this is not how our ArbCom is set up. Even in the case that both editors in the dispute are about equally civil and both receive similar sanctions, we have still sanctioned an editor trying to enforce our content policies. Such a person is likely to be discouraged from advocating neutrality in contentious areas in the future when they see that POV-pushers and neutrality advocates are treated exactly the same by the committee (indeed, they're likely to say "screw this" and leave the project completely).
— User:Heimstern's essay on the Arbitration Committee

Wikipedia is singularly ill-adapted to deal with nationalist troublemaking. Overmuch of the mentality of the Arbitration Committee, who will not rule on content, has filtered down to the administrative corps. Living-persons issues apart, most admins are too scared to block for POV pushing, even though neutrality is supposed to be our most important principle. Nor are such blocks readily endorsed, no matter how justified, largely because the majority of those expressing an opinion are not familiar with the subject matter, and either cannot or will not properly check the issues concerned. As a result, admins are unable to deal with pure POV-pushing, and can only address the other symptoms of the nationalist disease. Typically the nationalist troll does, in fact, infringe user conduct rules, but this cannot be universally relied upon. Even if he does, the nationalist cannot be relied upon to violate the user conduct regulations to the extent that he can be removed permanently....
— User:Moreschi's essay on the problems of nationalism.

My votes

Currently Running

This analysis is preliminary.

User/Talk/Contribs	Statement & Questions	Rights	Edits	Since	My thoughts	Intended vote
Balloonman • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	(ex)A	22882	2006-04-01	I echo what SandyGeorgia said in relation to this candidate.	Oppose
Casliber • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A,(ex)Arb	76277	2006-05-05	I need to think about this.	Undecided
Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A	22036	2005-08-08	I was somewhat impressed with his answer to RegentsPark's question; he seems to have used a similar analogy to that I used at 03:41 28 March 2010 (UTC).	Undecided
David_Fuchs • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A	26502	2005-10-15		Undecided
Elen_of_the_Roads • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A	7892	2008-05-11	Even before she was an administrator, her comments were very insightful and useful towards resolving disputes (and the comments themselves show understanding about what others are saying, and shows that she looks into things). However, some of the disputes ArbCom will be facing in coming years (or has already faced) are in a different league with respect to certain issues. I'd have strongly supported if I was confident that Elen had sufficient first-hand experience with how this process works in practice; that experience is sort of necessary if we are to expect significant and long-term good changes, and for those changes to be implemented before things like "burn out" or "end of term". I'd be in a better position to understand how she would approach some of the issues if I have even one case where I did some workshopping on proposals, but in the absence of doing so, I'm uneasy about this. We don't come across users like Elen very often so I'd have preferred to leave it for another year for her to gain that experience. That reservation aside, she will be a solid asset as SandyGeorgia correctly notes and I trust her level of clue.	Support
FT2 • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A,(ex)Arb,C,O	41900	2004-07-11	My recent (and some past) interactions with him suggest that he reads what is written, but often enough, he does not comprehend what is actually being said (and/or conveyed). This is an issue when arbitration is a final resort; concerns of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about arbitrators themselves are significant, and respectfully, I feel we cannot afford to experiment or have a repeat of those sorts of issues.	Oppose
Georgewilliamherbert • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A	13526	2005-07-31		Undecided
GiacomoReturned • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	None	40093 (total)	2004-11-08	Per what I said for Iridescent.	Support
Harej • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A	15497	2004-11-26	Need to ask more questions to this user.	Undecided
Iridescent • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A	156163	2006-02-15	Seems to understand the Community's concerns and will do what is necessary to address those concerns.	Strong support
Jclemens • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A	26102	2006-08-24	Some good answers, but a few concerns. May need to ask a few more questions.	Undecided
John_Vandenberg • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A,(ex)Arb,C,O	47969	2004-09-05	Might need to ask more questions, but inclined to support. I think his stance has strengthened against disruptive editors and puppetry. He's also prevented the escalation of other disputes so that the issues are focussed on what matters. He is reasonably open to input which is far more than I can say about some of the other arbitrators which were elected - one of whom has vanished and the other of whom is still present on the Committee.	Support
Loosmark • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	Rv	8057	2007-12-26	There may be a question of inexperience, but I don't think it's as significant as I first expected. There is some understanding about how arbitration works. That said, I'm also not convinced I can support ~~without asking more questions.~~ The sockpuppetry issue identified by CheckUsers is sufficient that further questions are not required. The Community has correctly imposed a site ban accordingly.	Strong Oppose
Newyorkbrad • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A,C,O,Arb	25894	2006-02-25	His leniency is criticised, but like some of my fellow guide writers, I believe that to be the positive from him. He also appreciates some of the issues I think exist with the arbitration process (and has at times, shared my frustration in one form or another). That said, I haven't yet alluded to or identified a few of the other issues which he could help resolve. So in order for that to change, and in order to keep the leniency that comes with him, it seems necessary to re-elect him.	Strong support
Off2riorob • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	Rv	43780	2008-12-04	ArbCom work is controversial by nature so that's not what worries me. However, there are too many conduct concerns to ignore at this time. A measured response is needed in certain situations and I'm not convinced he gets the message when he needs to.	Oppose
PhilKnight • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A	62274	2006-07-17	I think he will work with the Community rather than against it; he seems to understand the indications he receives.	Support
Sandstein • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A	41849	2005-07-31	Inflexibly too rooted in process and rules rather than looking at the spirit of things, which is an essential part of being an arbitrator. His conduct as an administrator is too troubling to ignore.	Strong Oppose
Shell_Kinney • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A,C,O,Arb	28921	2005-06-10	Poor handling of concerns that are raised about arbitrators, be it on or off wiki, in any format. There is no doubt that there were issues with FAC which could be resolved, but the more recent incident involving her making grossly ill-considered comments about FAC (in relation to Rlevse's vanishing after he plagiarised content which appeared on the main page) broke the camel's back. (I am told that those comments have since been deleted). I don't believe it is in the interests of the pillars of this project to re-elect her.	Oppose
SirFozzie • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A,C,O,Arb	8873	2006-02-06	I need to think about this.	Undecided
Xeno • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	Statement • Statement talk Questions • Questions talk	A,B	82632	2006-07-14	SandyGeorgia, Wizardman and NuclearWarfare have covered this adequately.	Oppose

Abbreviations

Positions
- Arb=Current Arbitrator
- Ex Arb=Former Arbitrator
Admin-level-or-higher rights
- A=Administrator
- B=Bureaucrat
- C=Checkuser (requires identification to WMF)
- O=Oversighter (requires identification to WMF)
- S=Steward (requires identification to WMF, no other non en:wp rights will be shown)
Non-admin rights (only mentioned if they have no admin rights)
- AC=Account Creator
- AF=Abuse Filter Manager
- AR=Autoreviewer
- IPBE=IP Block Exempt
- R=Rollbacker
- Rv=Reviewer