User:HJ Mitchell/ACE 2015

Once again, it's election season on Wikipedia. As in previous years, I'll write down my thoughts on the various candidates and offer them for whatever they're worth. The talk page is open should you wish to tell me an I'm an idiot, I've got something wrong, I missed something crucial, or even to agree with me!As ever, these thoughts are my own and are based on a combination of my knowledge of each candidate, their statements and answers to questions, and old-fashioned gut instinct. You should take it with a pinch of salt and probably shouldn't rely on it exclusively.

Preamble[edit]

ArbCom is a hard job. I've never sat on the committee myself, but I've known several arbitrators over the years and a handful of arbs and ex-arbs have become good friends. I've also served as an oversighter since March, which entails access to the functionaries' mailing list and gives something of an insight into the non-public aspect of the committee's workload. And that workload is considerable—in nine months as an oversighter, I've received over 2,000 emails just through the functionaries and oversight mailing lists. It's hard to see colleagues criticised—and often berated—for things they simply cannot discuss in public. Some of these things should really be handled by the WMF or by some other more-qualified; an ad-hoc group of Wikipedia editors who share little besides a subscription to a mailing list have neither the capability or the authority to go launching investigations into somebody's activities elsewhere on the Internet, and yet this is precisely what ArbCom is frequently asked to do, knowing full well that they'll be severely criticised if they refuse to take on the investigation and equally severely criticised if they take it on, with the result that no firm conclusion can be reached or that they reach an inevitably unpopular conclusion. Unfortunately, arbitrators have to work within these confines and try to make some sense of it all—which is why they rarely have time for routine editing, why they often appear disillusioned, and why we often end up with mid-term resignations.

The best committees need a diverse range of skills, but above all ArbCom needs calm, patient people who can weather the vitriol and can read everything that has been submitted and reach an objective conclusion. They need to have the courage in their convictions to take a potentially unpopular position and stand by it, but also the humility and integrity to constantly re-evaluate their position in the light of new information and to change their minds if necessary. Stubborn arbitrators who dig their heels in and refuse to budge can deadlock the decision-making process. To my mind, it is not a prerequisite that a candidate be an administrator; it is not necessary for arbitrators to undertake routine admin actions, and where admin tools are necessary there are ways of getting things done. Nonetheless, non-admin candidates will be at something of a disadvantage, as passing an RfA demonstrates a certain level of trustworthiness and experience; administrators (as the name suggests!) are also more likely to be exposed to the inner workings of Wikipedia. While this is something to take into account, I would urge you not to automatically discount a candidate solely because they are not an administrator.

Another consideration is institutional memory: many things that ArbCom deals with have origins going back years, while others will be similar to things that the committee has handled in the past. Almost two thirds of the seats are up for grabs this year, which potentially means the loss of some of the most experienced arbitrators and that institutional memory. Bearing in mind that it takes a while to learn the role, and longer for a new arbitrator to fully get into their stride, we simply can't have the whole committee rotating every year or two, so I'm glad to see that some of the outgoing arbs are standing for re-election and at least one former arb is standing again after a rest. With a late deepening of the candidate pool, this should be a very interesting election and will hopefully provide one of the strongest ArbComs we've seen for a long time.

Candidates[edit]

Callanecc[edit]

Support
Glad to see him standing. ArbCom needs somebody like this. There aren't many people with his depth and breadth of expertise—he's seen ArbCom up close and personal as a member of the Audit Subcommittee, an arbitration clerk, a checkuser and oversighter, and an admin working in arbitration enforcement. Importantly, he does all of those jobs diligently, efficiently, and consistently, so I imagine he would be able to maintain a fairly consistent level of activity as an arbitrator throughout his term. This isn't essential for all arbitrators, but every committee needs at least one member who is present for as close to all the business as possible.

Casliber[edit]

Support
Dedicated content editor, good admin (though not the most active), and a former arb with a reputation for being sensible and level-headed. Indeed, he's one of the most unflappable admins I've come across, and he very much "gets" what Wikipedia is about, as evidenced by the impressive quantity and quality of his article work.

Drmies[edit]

Support
A wise "old hand" of Wikipedia. He'd probably hate it, and probably hate keeping up with all the different pages and subpages etc even more, but ultimately I trust him to read what's put in front of him, make an objective judgement, and explain his decision and thought process articulately; that's the bit that can't be learn 'on the job'. The comment "One is the ability to say anything one wants, the other is to communicate in an atmosphere without harassment" clinched it for me. He gets that there needs to be a certain level of decorum without wanting to impose rules against "naughty words" like a nursery school teacher.

Gamaliel[edit]

Neutral
Other guide writers, and other editors in the past, have criticised Gamaliel for his proximity to drama and some of his administrative decisions have come in for criticism. There may be something to that, but I don't think the critics adequately take into account that Gamaliel is an admin who is not afraid to stick his head above the parapet. For example, I worked with him closely at the height of the gamergate dispute (prior to and during the arbitration case) and no every decision he made was perfect, but I admire his willingness to look into the issue and actually make a decision instead of kicking the can down the road or letting a thread archive without a decision one way or the other. I don't think he'd make a bad arbitrator, but I do think there are nine candidates who would probably make better arbitrators, so I'm neutral.

GorillaWarfare[edit]

Support
Intelligent and articulate. Eagle-eyed readers will notice a particular emphasis on "articulate" in this guide. Inarticulate or intransigent arbs who take a position without engaging do nothing to move the discussion forward and thus resolve the issue (the nominal purpose of the committee). I don't always agree with Molly, but her positions are, in my experience, generally accompanied by a considered rationale rather than appearing to be a knee-jerk reaction. The former is much more helpful and certainly more likely to gain my respect than the latter.

Hawkeye7[edit]

Neutral
I'd support if I didn't have nine candidates I thought were better prepared, by nature of their existing work on Wikipedia, for what they would face on ArbCom. Yes, he was desysopped by ArbCom a few years ago. There's no doubting there were a couple of incidents in quick succession in which his judgement was called into question, but most have us have had lapses in judgement at one point or another; he was unlucky that both were tangents to more complex issues that ended up at arbitration, otherwise both would be ancient history by now. I've worked with him extensively as a coordinator of the military project (one of the largest and most active projects on the site) and I've never had cause to question his judgement, certainly not to the extent that I think he'd do something malicious or sufficiently careless to be damaging. He may be a slightly unorthodox candidate, but I think he could handle the workload and would bring a different perspective to cases. Above all, I think he's motivated by a desire to make what he believes to be an unfair process more fair, which can't be a bad thing.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz[edit]

Oppose
This was just silly. It was stubbornness to the point of absurdity on such a trivial issue. That kind of hard-headedness is precisely the kind of quality we don't want in arbitrators, who need to be open to reason, discussion, and compromise.

Keilana[edit]

Support
Content creation and outreach work bring a different perspective; many of the candidates are somewhat hardened and jaded by years of front-line admin work and other less pleasant tasks and while we need that, we also need a diverse range of experiences to prevent the committee from becoming an echo chamber. Emily is sensible, knows her way around the inner workings of Wikipedia, and her work with new editors will have taught her the importance of explaining things simply and clearly, and sometimes ad nauseum. To be able to do that and remain calm is a valuable skill for an arbitrator.

Kelapstick[edit]

Support
Sensible, experienced, well-respected oversighter. Seems to have been effective in the role from what I've seen (we were appointed in the same round back in March). Answers to questions confirm my general impression of sensible and amenable without wasting inordinate amounts of time on nonsense. Though he should probably feed his kids something other than carbohydrates!

Kevin Gorman[edit]

~~Neutral~~Oppose
I wouldn't be upset to see Kevin on ArbCom, but—much as I like the guy—I have a few slight reservations. Obviously his health is beyond his control and I'm glad to hear he's recovering, but I wonder if he can take the toll for two years. More importantly, he's been largely out of the game for the last year meaning that he might not be up to date with all the goings-on—the place can change significantly in the space of a year. My final reservation is that every time I've encountered Kevin in the last year it has been right in the middle of the biggest controversies of the moment, notably gamergate. I didn't necessarily disagree with his actions, but if memory serves there were a couple of occasions when more drama was created than was absolutely necessary. My gut feeling on this can be summed up as "maybe next year, but probably not this year". On further reflection, I feel I have to oppose Kevin. I sill think he's a nice guy, but I have grave concerns about Kevin's level-headedness in disputes and he seems to have no qualms about sacrificing others' privacy in the name of political expediency. Regardless of where he got his information or how nasty these people are or whether the person being outed has "99.8% identified himself", this kind of thing is unacceptable at the best of times. If done by an arbitrator, it would bring the whole committee into disrepute, and if it potentially involved the use of advanced permissions (given that arbs have access to checkuser and oversight data) could undermine the entire checksuer and ovesigher corps.

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

~~Support~~Neutral
It looks like we're going to see a significant turnover this year, including the loss of some of the most experienced arbitrators, so Kirill's return to the committee after a rest would restore some of the committee's institutional memory. It's important to get a mix of experience and new blood with each election cycle. I've always thought of Kirill as generally sensible and willing to do the legwork of reading large volume of evidence and drafting a proposed decision. I've sometimes thought that his approach is a little too "letter of the law", but there are potentially fourteen other arbitrators, each of whom will have their approach, so it's not such a significant concern as to preclude supporting. Upon further evaluation, though, Kirill appears to have been barely active since he left the committee. Five hundred mainspace edits takes us back to July 2009, and aside from a few housekeeping deletions his only admin action this year has been a controversial block which triggered an arbitration case. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth when an otherwise inactive admin comes out of nowhere, makes a controversial action, and promptly disappears again, and indeed at least one admin has been desysopped in the past for doing something similar with a controversial unblock. This gives me slight pause as to Kirill's judgement, but more importantly we need arbitrators who are going to shoulder their share of the burden—one consistently active arbitrator is better than multiple inactive arbitrators, no matter how virtuous or experienced the inactive ones are.

Kudpung[edit]

Support
I was disappointed that Kudpung didn't run last year, having narrowly missed the deadline for nominations. I do worry a little that he's slightly jaded by his years of front-line admin work and other things he's seen and done on Wikipedia, and he has some strong opinions that he's not shy of expressing, but ultimately I think he knows when to tone it down and when to compromise. He can be patient when patience is necessary (as demonstrated by his work with new editors) but he won't put up with time-wasters. Ultimately, I think he's a wise and sensible editor and would be a valuable addition to the committee.

LFaraone[edit]

Support
Interesting that we have quite a few candidates in their early twenties. I'd have made a lousy arb when I was 22. But then that was only a few years ago, and I'd still make a lousy arb now! I know some have considered Luke to be one of the weaker candidates among the incumbents seeking re-election, but I always thought he was sensible and some technical know-how could come in handy on the committee. If there was one thing in particular that tipped the scales in his favour, it was his answer to Tryptofish. He's right that ArbCom needs a much better system (in fact, it needs a system, any system is better than none at all!) for handling, tracking, and actioning private correspondence so that things don't slip through the cracks or urgent matters don't wait for days before being dealt with. It helps that Luke probably has the expertise to get something in place.

Mahensingha[edit]

Oppose
Sorry. Statement is far too brief; it barely contains the mandatory stuff, never mind an idea of what they'd hope to accomplish on ArbCom or something that shows they fully understand the role. Also a non-admin with fewer than 5k edits. Statistics aren't everything, but they can be suggestive and these suggest Mahensingha doesn't have the necessary experience for the role.

MarkBernstein[edit]

Oppose
Really? Fair enough, the ArbCom elections are a good soapbox and Mark's entitled to express his opinion. I don't disagree with everything he says, but the heat-to-light ratio in a dispute significantly deteriorates with Mark's presence. That said, I have no doubt about his sincerity in standing up for his principles.

NE Ent[edit]

Oppose
Spends far too much time at ANI and far too much time politicking in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace. Occasionally produces insightful commentary, but usually (in my experience) just ends up in the middle of the drama. Indeed, he's edited ANI more than any other page on the entire wiki (and orders of magnitude more than any article). That almost half his edits are to the project space while less than 10% are to the mainspace suggests that he doesn't fully understand what this website is about and doesn't have "skin in the game". Can't possibly understand Wikpedia from the perspective of people who invest huge amounts of time in researching and writing articles, and defending those articles from gradual degradation by (usually) well-meaning but misguided editors—which is the sole purpose of this venture. Also far too much procedure wonkery and not enough thinking outside the box.

Opabinia regalis[edit]

Support
Brings a light-hearted approach with a serious point to discussions, which is an instant plus in my book. Seems very personable, doesn't take herself too seriously, and speaks a lot of sense. People with those qualities tend to be slow to anger and, if they can make themselves heard, can hold back an angry mob. Particularly like her answer to Smallbones. It's a loaded question, but there's a valid point behind it and Opabinia made the best of that, especially with her final remark: "this isn't social justice bingo. It's about making sure we treat the other human beings who have volunteered their time to the project with equal amounts of kindness and respect". Strikes me as a "thinking outside the box" sort of candidate, which is something ArbCom needs, especially if the glacial speed of case progression is to be improved.

Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Oppose
Sorry, Rich! I've got to know Rich quite well over the last few years and I think he's a great bloke; I'd happily drink beer with him and discuss all sorts of things, and he genuinely wants to help. The trouble is he doesn't think things through, he has an unhealthy fixation on automating everything, and he's not willing to listen and compromise. He ran automated editing software on his main account, more-or-less 24/7 for years, essentially running an unapproved bot on his admin account. The result? He slapped an {{uncategorised}} tag on the main page.The main page is fully protected precisely we because we expect admins to have better judgement than that. He has taken up inordinate amounts of the committee's time in he last year or two with clarification and amendment requests, and yes he has to an extent been treated unfairly (there's no reason he should have to fight so hard to automate the process of compiling lists of potential article subjects in his own userspace, for example), but it's also fair to say that he hasn't listened to the message that ArbCom were trying to send him: that he needs to re-evaluate his approach to editing and in particular automation. Finally, he's a bit of a stickler for procedure which is something ArbCom has too much of. Hopefully he'll let me buy him a pint next time I see him to make up for opposing him!

Samtar[edit]

Oppose
Seems a nice chap and perfectly sincere, but I don't think he has the necessary experience and I think the workload and the unpleasantness of the 'dark side' of Wikipedia would come as a shock to him. I wouldn't throw anyone head-first into that unless they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and more to the point I have nine more-experienced candidates I'd sooner vote for.

Thryduulf[edit]

Support
In the interests of full disclosure, Chris is a friend in 'real life'. I'll let you, the reader, decide how large a pinch of salt to take my comments with. He's only been on the committee for a year, but I've always found him thoughtful, insightful, and willing to explain himself, which are among the skills that can't be learnt on the job. He's been around for a long time and has seen how Wikipedia and its community has change over that time, and he's survived a year on ArbCom and is standing for re-election. Given more time to settle into the role, I think Chris could become one of the committee's leading lights.

Timtrent[edit]

Neutral
~~I'm tempted to support and may change my mind yet, but for now I've got my nine candidates and that's the only reason I'm not supporting Tim.~~ He's clearly an insightful and articulate editor. His answers to the questions are generally impressive; they do raise questions of their own about his familiarity with the arbitration process and the policies that arbitration decisions are often based in, but that's a deficiency that can be compensated for with common sense and the experience of the rest of the committee. Appears to have a healthy scepticism of the bureaucracy, which can only be an advantage in my book. ~~I changed my mind; I'm supporting~~. Tim would be a rather different sort of arbitrator, but a refreshing change in my opinion. Sorry to flip-flop, but the candidate pool deepened significantly at the last minute and there are nine (in fact, ten) candidates I'd rather support.

Wildthing61476[edit]

Oppose
Seems intelligent and thoughtful, but I don't think they're aware of the private aspects of arbitrators' workloads, and judging from their answers to the questions they don't seem to have the immediate familiarity with policy that we expect, for example, of administrators, let alone arbitrators.

Withdrawn candidates[edit]

AKS.9955[edit]

Oppose
No doubt well-intentioned, but doesn't appear to understand what being an arbitrator entails and appears to lack the requisite knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia. I'm sure they stood with nothing but the best of intentions, but I don't think they're suitable and I doubt they'd last the year if elected.

Salvidrim![edit]

Neutral
I don't think Ben would be a terrible arbitrator by any means. We've certainly had much worse. I have a few reservations. For example, his account was recently compromised; I trust his word that his account is much less vulnerable now (in fact, somewhat ironically, it's probably now secure than most people's!), but it does tend to suggest that he hadn't thought through his ambitions to hold sensitive positions. Ultimately, he doesn't want to serve, so it saves me agonising over whether or not to support him; I'll do as he suggests and thank him for standing and thus deepening the candidate pool, but vote for nine other people I'd prefer this time round.