User:WereSpielChequers/ACE2010

This is a voter guide for the 2010 Arbcom elections. There are a lot of such guides and I don't know how many will bother to read this. But if nothing else I need somewhere to focus my own thoughts. As this is an election for eleven places I hope to be able to support eleven candidates. I may well wind up supporting more, I will only oppose a candidate if I really don't want to see them on Arbcom and see little point in voting tactically for just eleven - as this election doesn't have running totals there is no opportunity to do tactical voting such as for the tenth to twelfth places, so though my supports are not equally strong I may not bother to explain how strong or weak they are.

Arbcom members have access to a variety of personal information including CU data and a large amount of personal data that is too sensitive for us mere admins, so I'm looking for a certain amount of responsibility and trustworthiness.

Arbcom makes decisions about editors that can involve blocks, bans, desysopping and other restrictions. So I'm looking for a record of both correctly reading evidence and of making good judgement in making decisions. But more than that, Arbs need to be able to communicate what they find in a way that can convince others, and clearly indicates why a particular behaviour is wrong and needs to stop, change, and not be imitated by others.

In particular I want Arbs who understand that this project relies on volunteer labour, and that those who want to make major changes here need to at least try to carry the community and be willing to stop and rethink when they realise they can't. I think that Arbs need to show compassion even when dealing with those who have shown themselves to be unsuited to this site.

One of the incidents that most influences my thinking on Arbcom was the out of process deletion spree at the beginning of this year.

After a discussion off wiki on a site normally known for attempts to out or otherwise harass Wikipedians and damage wikipedia, a small group of admins started deleting articles out of process and without informing any of the authors. One of the first effects of this was to derail the biggest BLP improvement program that had happened for years, User:DASHBot was politely bot messaging the authors of unreferenced BLPs, and had done 9,000 of 16,000 messages when the deletions started, and lacking any other explanation aggrieved editors turned up at Dashbots page.... Ironically the deletions were done by people who thought they were improving our BLP processes. I wasn't impressed at the Arbcom response. OK that they stopped it and also that they didn't desysop the admins who had been deleting out of process and against consensus, but I'd have preferred at least an admonishment and a reminder that admins should respect consensus; That those who would change wikipedia should do their planning onsite not offsite on a forum more usually associated with attempts to damage Wikipedia or Wikipedians; and that admins should respect non-admins and their contributions.

The more I go through these candidates the more I remember that we are assessing a potential team, or at least two thirds of one. So I am supporting some candidates who I have significant disagreements with, but who have worthwhile perspectives and experience.

1. user:Balloonman Support Balloonman was my nominator for my second and successful RFA, I don't think we've always seen eye to eye since, but I have huge respect for him and hope that this is the new challenge that can keep him in Wikipedia for some years to come.
2. user:Casliber Support I was impressed at the way he fell on his sword over the Law/Undertow incident, have seen many clueful contributions from Casliber. Time for a return to Arbcom.
3. user:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry Support probably the only candidate I've met in real life, though we've rarely crossed paths on wiki. I like the question answers and the skillset and intend to support.
4. user:David Fuchs Support I think we need at least some arbs who are involved in our best content, and I liked his response to the BLP deletion spree and also re vested contributors here
5. user:Elen of the Roads Support Not someone I've often run across before, so I've spent rather longer reviewing her than any candidate I've looked at so far. Fairly new to the project, very new as an admin. But we have an Arbcom that is heavily skewed towards our community's veterans so it would be good to refresh this with some new blood, and I really hope that will include Elen. Great question answers and I think she'd bring some useful perspective to the table.
6. user:FT2 a controversial candidate. I did not start paying attention to Arbcom until after his resignation and don't have the background to make a recommendation to others, also many key questions such as Lar's ones are still unanswered as of 1st Dec. So on the off chance that anyone is reading this, I am not making a recommendation to others re this candidate.
7. user:Georgewilliamherbert Support Another I've not had much to do with, But I liked the question answers and respect the experience. May revisit when more questions are answered.
8. user:GiacomoReturned Oppose with regret This incident was 18 months ago but judging from blocks and so forth I'm not convinced Giano has changed since then. If Giano had taken the opportunity to explain why he considered that the candidate had "terrible contributions" then the RFA would likely have tanked and the and the editor kept but reformed. As it was the RFA succeeded, then within 72 hours it emerged that the new admin had committed a large amount of copyvio and plagiarism and the resulting dramafest was far worse than it need have been. I want Arbs who respond to queries about their rulings and who communicate politely, clearly and effectively. One day Giano may make a great Arb. but alas not yet.
9. user:Harej Support good question answers, especially to Skomorokh's one. Some concern that he will need to ramp up his wikitime if elected, but as he is prepared to do that I'm happy to support.
10. user:Iridescent Oppose I'm suspicious of candidates who are active at Wikipedia Review, and per my question here don't trust them to correctly evaluate evidence or refine their position when mistakes are pointed out.
11. user:Jclemens Support I've come across Jclemens several times and already considered him clueful and responsible. I disagree with him on flagged revisions - if we can implement it on DE Wiki without deterring good faith editors then if we got consensus we could do it here. But I do like the way he appreciates that the important thing for BLPs is to focus on harmful content.
12. user:John Vandenberg Support I've come across him before and been positively impressed, see no reason not to support. He is in effect standing for a one year term, but judging by the high turnover of previous Arbs I'll take a definite one year term over a possible two year term any day.
13. user:Loosmark Oppose Several blocks in the last 12 months leaves me inclined to oppose, or expect a very good explanation in the candidate's statement. The answer to question four shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to how Arbcom and previously Jimbo have operated over the years "It's literally impossible to desysop an admin" is a popular Wikipedia myth and common hyperbole. But I expect a candidate for Arbcom to have a better understanding of the reality here. Update, now blocked for socking.
14. user:Newyorkbrad Support I've come across NYB in several places on the pedia and don't think I've ever failed to be impressed. So I'm going to support even though he is a lawyer.
15. user:Off2riorob Neutral blocklog is troubling, though not all have stuck. Very clueful comments in various places, would probably support if this was an RFA but may go neutral here unless I can't find eleven to support.
16. user:PhilKnight Support I want Arbcom to take the approach of trying to defuse incidents and keep as many participants as can be trusted not to cause further incidents, as opposed to deciding which side should win or lose. I see this candidate as very much a mediator rather than a judge and like his approach.
17. user:Sandstein Support Another lawyer, but I'm supporting nonetheless as I suppose a few such would be useful on Arbcom. Also not afraid to argue a minority position and has sensible views on the BLP deletion spree and consequent damage to the community and the pedia.
18. user:Shell Kinney Weak Oppose I wasn't very impressed at her attitude to the community as expressed in her support of the Arbcom decision re the the BLP deletion spree incident at the beginning of the year, nor at her comments here (OK I used to review at FAC, but not the article in question)
19. user:SirFozzie Support Though I'm a bit wary of his involvement in Wikipedia Review. But I like the way he has performed as an Arb, and I liked much of the way he handled the questions. Especially Sven Manguard's first question about the biggest threat to Wikipedia.
20. user:Stephen Bain Weak Oppose Less than 50 edits in 2010 and judging from the answers to Lar's questions it shows. I could accept the big gap in editing if his question answers showed that he'd caught up, but I'm not convinced he has.
21. user:Xeno Support It was Xeno who gave me Rollback more than two years ago, so I've tended to notice him in discussions since. Can't say I always agree with him, but think he'd be useful on Arbcom