 |
|
I've created this page to write down my thoughts on the candidates for the 2011 Arbitration Committee elections. Hopefully somebody will find it useful, but I'm the kind of person who needs to write things down for them to make sense so it will at least benefit me! I invite discussion of anything I've said here on the talk page, and I would suggest that voters do their own research (including reading the other vote guides.
Candidates edit
AGK (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- abusefilter, checkuser, oversight, sysop, 31322 edits since: 2006-02-27
- Initial opinion: support
Has the dispute resolution experience from MedCom, the internal process experience from AUSC. Clearly trustworthy as he was recently appointed a permanent checkuser and oversighter. I very much like his aim to hold as much discussion as possible in public—the private mailing list very much creates an "us vs. them" mentality and is what makes arbitrators seem so disconnected from the community as a whole. He has experience of what I call "front-line adminning", which many of the current arbs lacked before they were elected. Having admins on the committee who have logged a few thousand actions before being elected, and dealt with the shit admins have to deal with, can only be a benefit in my book.
Coren (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- abusefilter, checkuser, oversight, sysop, 16354 edits since: 2003-05-27
- Initial opinion: oppose
I'm not the first to say that Coren has lost touch with the community as a whole. Nor am I the first to point out that his last 100 contributions to the mainspace go back a long way. He's been on ArbCom too long. Perhaps a year or two doing something else would be beneficial. Also, this, albeit a while ago, showed extraordinarily poor judgement in my view, and exemplifies a "letter of the law" approach that I think Coren adopts too often.
Courcelles (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- abusefilter, checkuser, oversight, sysop, Global_rollback, 198292 edits since: 2006-02-28
- Initial opinion: support
He seems to have stood for every position under the sun in the last year, and I would have liked to have seen him complete his term on AUSC before standing for more positions. However, the timing of the AUSC appointments and the ArbCom elections are beyond his control. He posses sufficient common sense to get the job done, and his experience on AUSC will mean that he has minimal catching-up to do. I've known Courcelles for quite some time and I've never seen him make a rash decision or utter an unduly harsh word against another editor. I think he would be a fair but not unduly lenient arbitrator.
DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- rollbacker (admin on a break), 15991 edits since: 2007-11-07
- Initial opinion: undecided
On the one hand, he seems to be a level-headed, sensible editor, operator of a very useful bot, and a good amin not afraid to tackle some of the more monotonous tasks. On the other, he'staking a break from adminship because it's getting in the way of real life—does he have the time that ArbCom takes up and does he have sufficient experience of the more complex areas of adminning? I'm not sure.
Eluchil404 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- sysop, 10375 edits since: 2006-03-02
- Initial opinion: oppose
Just not active enough. Their last 1,000 edits stretch back nearly two years and I don't recall ever seeing them around.
Geni (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- sysop, 27659 edits since: 2004-03-30
- Initial opinion: oppose
Failing to keep track of alternate accounts is not what I expect of an arbitrator. I like the guy, and he might not make a bad arb if elected, but the issues with the accounts (at least one of which has been blocked for sockpuppetry) and his vague answer to my question about them leave me too concerned.
Hersfold (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- abusefilter, bureaucrat, checkuser, sysop, 31645 edits since: 2006-12-21
- Initial opinion: likely support
Similar to DQ in a way—he resigned his seat last time he was on ArbCom due to time constraints, does he have the time this time round? I hope so, because there's no doubt he's a useful editor; his clerking bot does good work, he knows his way around the dispute resolution process and has experience as a functionary. It's a yes from me, but a hesitant one.
Hot Stop (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- 866 edits since: 2011-04-11
- Initial opinion: oppose
Not enough experience, recent block.
Jclemens (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- checkuser, oversight, sysop, 31757 edits since: ???
- Initial opinion: probably support
Doesn't seem to have had a disastrous year on the committee. I've not had much interaction with him as an arb, so I have yet to fully form my opinion, but I don't see any glaring reason not to put him back on the committee.
Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- checkuser, oversight, sysop, 67226 edits since: 2005-06-08
- Initial opinion: undecided
Very good at the organisational/administrative/documentation side of things, but there are a few question marks in my mind, and a few more raised in other voter guides. Requires more deliberation, which will work its way here in due course.
Kww (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)}
- abusefilter, sysop, 56020 edits since: 2007-01-09
- Initial opinion: oppose
In general, he does a good job chasing round banned sockpuppeteers and keeping order in areas like pop music, where amny of the articles are dominated by younger Wikipedians. He has had a tendency in the past to over-use RevDel on harmless edits, although a check of his deletion log shows that he hasn't used RevDel in a while. Still concerning since arbs are generally given Oversight. Not sure I'd be 100% comfortable with him having CheckUser either. While it's true that some admins have made actions which were, at best, extremely controversial under the guise of BLP, I cannot agree with the stance he assumes in his statement. He can also be a bit argumentative sometimes.
NWA.Rep (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- 4279 edits since: 2006-02-12
- Initial opinion: oppose
Seems to have unretired to stand for election; extensive block log as a result of his propensity to edit war (often over things that really don't matter, or where he is in the wrong—such as the silly "new messages" bar on his userpage); misleading userbox taking credit for 20 FAs; polemic userboxen; overly political userpage in general. Need I go on?
Panyd (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- sysop, 9066 edits since: 2007-10-13
- Initial opinion: abstain (can't decide, and would rather not anyway, even though it's a total cop out)
Would make a fabulous arbitrator, but would the pressure be too much? What if she gets ill mid-term?
Risker (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- abusefilter, checkuser, oversight, sysop, 17774 edits since: 2005-12-27
- Initial opinion: slightly reluctant support
I'll probably support, because Risker is generally a sensible arbitrator, but she may have been on ArbCom too long. Can be a bit of a stickler for the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law which leads to over-reactions to things like this and refusals to look past ancient history (cf. Jack Merridew's various tangles with ArbCom).
Roger Davies (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- checkuser, oversight, sysop, 29351 edits since: 2005-09-17
- Initial opinion: support
I don't always agree with him, but his decisions and opinions are not normally what I would consider unfair or unreasonable. He put a lot of effort into drafting the new arbitration policy. I like his proposals for changes he'd bring in a second term, especially non-arb membership of BASC.
SilkTork (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- sysop, 51897 edits since: 2006-01-12
- Initial opinion: support
One of the first admins I ever came across as a newbie and one of the best I know. A writer of excellent articles and an extremely sensible editor. Will make a fine addition to the committee.
Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- sysop, 8945 edits since: 2008-07-13
- Initial opinion: undecided