 |
|
Here we go. This time of year again when we elect arbs.
As in the past, I look for arbs who are looking out for the encyclopedia rather than Da Rules. The encyclopedia is under constant assault from POV-pushers of many stripes (my personal focus is on those of a nationalist bent), and we need ArbCom to deal with them and not to punish people who try to deal with the problem according to Wikipedia policy. WP:ARBMAC2, even after two years, remains a sore point for me and one I wish never to be repeated. (See my critique of the committee for more on this.) Edit warring and incivility are conduct violations, but so are POV-pushing and battleground mentality, and our arbs need to be ready to enforce these.
I don't take kindly to civility policing, so I will be opposing anyone I consider to be a civility cop. I believe in civility, but I find it about the least enforceable policy on Wikipedia because it means such different things to different people. (In following the recent controversies, I've been amazed how many people think calling people "narrow-minded" is more civil than calling them "arses"; it just shows how subjective it is.) Civility does have to be taken into account in the longer term, primarily in the context of other forms of disruption, but the whack-a-mole approach taken by many admins is unhelpful.
I should also state that for me, my standard vote is automatically "oppose". Candidates must earn a support. This is not tactical voting; rather it's just a recognition that ArbCom is a big deal and that no one should be supported without good reason.
Candidates
AGK: Support. AGK's position on ArbCom and content is very close to mine (actually, he's said his writings on the topic are partly influenced by my own) and I support such views being on ArbCom.
Coren: Oppose. Other guide writers have pointed out Coren's very limited contact with the encyclopedia, which is certainly concerning. What really drove the nail in the coffin for me, though, were this (brought to you courtesy of SandyGeorgia) and this. If your constituents disgust you, probably better off not being elected by them.
Courcelles: Support. Always seems to be an insightful admin, and answers to the questions are solid.
DeltaQuad: Oppose due to newness as an admin, limited content contribs and some less-than-ideal answers to questions.
Eluchil404: Oppose. Answer to NuclearWarfare question 3 is a complete non-starter. If you're not ready to take every ArbCom hammer to the civil POV pushers, and especially if you consider incivility to be a greater threat than it, then you don't belong on the committee.
Geni: Oppose; Geni's answers to the questions are generally unimpressive, in no small part because his writing borders on "idk my bff jill"-speak in places. I don't want to be the pedantic English teacher here (yes, that is in fact my real-world job), but communication is very important for arbs, and I don't see that in Geni.
Hersfold: Support with some mild reservations. Has always seemed like a reasonable guy. I do worry a bit about his answer to my question, though; I worry he underestimates the need for the committee to sometimes provide direction toward content resolution, as happened in ArbMac2 and as is happening now in the Abortion case. (To be fair, Hersfold does acknowledge that maybe it's too much to expect the community to handle these things on their own if they've reached arbitration.) Still, I think it's best for me not to take this as a dealbreaker and go ahead and support.
Hot Stop: Oppose, and not only because of inexperience. Even as the guy who wrote the book (OK, the short essay) on ignoring incivility, this remains unacceptable. Lack of experience is also a problem.
Jclemens: Oppose. Have not really been impressed with his performance on the committee, and current votes concerning Orangemarlin at the abortion (of whom I am no particularly great supporter) are highly troubling. They're some of the most blatantly punitive remarks I've seen in recent times from an arb, and not particularly charitable toward other arbs who are advancing, in my view, an entirely reasonable position that those who are prevented from participating in a case due to real-life problems ought to have their hearings postponed. (Not cancelled, merely postponed.) And then there's this diff: What on earth does it matter than John Vandenberg is a lame duck? He only is because he's chosen not to run for another term. I can only read this as a fallacious attempt to discredit his opponent or as an uncharitable sigh of relief that he's going to be gone. I'm sorry, but I think it's time to make Jclemens a lame duck.
Kirill Lokshin: Support with some reservations. Kirill is not an ideal arb, for various reasons, including those observed by NuclearWarfare. I'm also a little concerned about his being unwilling to make further moves toward helping the community put out fires in national disputes in the Senkaku Islands case. Still, I think he does more good than harm, and especially with this relatively limited field, I'm going to go ahead and support.
Kww: Oppose; not a fan of his BLP views and with several of his analyses of recent cases, and his answer to general question 4 is a non-starter.
Maxim: Withdrawn.
NWA.Rep: Hell no. Blatant POV pusher: actually once MFD'd Wikiproject China because he disagreed with the POV of some of its members. How he continues to have the phrase "China=shame" on his userpage without the community making him remove it remains a mystery to me. Regardless, this user should not be on the committee.
Panyd: I'm leaning oppose, though I find this an intriguing candidacy in its own way. Once again, NuclearWarfare's question 3 is most informative. I am concerned about Panyd's assessment of MastCell's quote: it seems to suggest an unwillingness to make judgment calls about whether an editor is POV-pushing (true, the original quote used less decorous language, but the intent is clear), and someone who is not ready to do that really shouldn't be on the committee. POV-pushing is a conduct offence and must be sanctioned. And frankly, while it can be difficult to distinguish misguided good faith editors from POV-pushers in the short term, the difference eventually becomes pretty clear, and ArbCom, due to its last-resort status, only gets involved at that point, anyway. Panyd's assessment of my quote, by contrast, suggests an understanding of the need for better content dispute resolution that many don't seem to have. Still, I'm not convinced at this point. Right now, this seems like a "maybe next year" candidacy to me.
Risker: Support. I haven't always agreed with Risker, but I think her record on the committee speaks for her as one of the most reasonable arbs we've had in recent times.
Roger Davies: Highly conflicted support. Roger is very reasonable and professional in his approach to arbitration. I still have a lot of difficulty shaking my distaste for his voting record in ArbMac2, in which he voted to sanction an editor who ought to have been supported. This and some other lesser incidents have led me to worry about him as overdoing the civility side of policy. Nonetheless, Roger is very open to dialogue (the only candidate thus far to initiate dialogue with me), which ultimately tips the balance slightly in his support.
SilkTork: Support; answers to the questions are reasonable and has endorsements from others whose opinions I find valuable.
Worm That Turned: Reading his answers to the questions, my impression is of both a fairly high degree of clue for someone relatively inexperienced, and yet still a sense of that inexperience. Some of that is by the candidate's own admission. This leaves a hard choice for me, as he seems like a really interesting candidate with some good ideas, but he just doesn't quite give the impression of sufficient experience and understanding for the job. I think I'm going to have to come out with oppose per my policy of opposing any candidate who does not earn a support, but I think this might be a good candidacy in the future.
Final note: Yes, I realize I've supported fewer than eight candidates. This does not mean I cannot count to eight, rather, it means I've counted the candidates I'm willing to support and there are fewer than eight. I don't believe in adding supports to round out the number, as I'd prefer for the committee to start below capacity than to have the wrong people on it.