User:Lar/ACE2010

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

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

Notes: These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides are welcome for inclusion.

Introduction[edit]

Herewith my thoughts on the 2010 ArbComm elections. I am now in the process of evaluating all candidates. If you have comments you are welcome to make them on either the talk page for this page, or on my main talk page. You should do your own research, don't go by what I think, but in case you were wondering what I thought, there you are.

This was generated and there may be some small bugs in the edit count link for people with spaces in their names, you'll have to fix them yourself.

Note: If you want to make one of these for yourself you're welcome to crib from this. I used a row template to help out. Technical issues with it should be raised on its talk page: User talk:Lar/ACE2010/row.

The Election and the process[edit]

Some thoughts on the overall election process, somewhat random.

First, (and I realize this may not be the populist view) I thought last year's (2009) arbcom was on balance the best one we've had yet. The 2010 arbcom continued much of that. I think there's one particular case they botched, and botched badly, during the course of it, but on balance they did pretty good if not quite up to 2009's high bar. I think a lot of the credit for that goes to the increased structure and repeatability of processes that the committee has instituted. Just making sure that mail doesn't get lost, publishing a suggested agenda and time line, and other mundane things ... these all go a long way to making the committee and its proceedings "fairer". Wikipedia isn't intended to be fair, but making things fair when it doesn't stand in the way of doing the project is goodness. It helps morale and improves editor retention. So candidates that are likely to pick up where others left off are likely to get more favorable reviews from me, all else being equal, than those who think we can just wing it.

Second, I remain convinced that BLPs are the single biggest problem facing the project and I intend to grade candidates on how I perceive their views on BLPs. ArbCom may not be able to directly mandate policy but I expect it to firmly speak out about the BLP problem and whenever it's a factor in the case, ensure that the findings do not punish those who work hard to alleviate it or reward those who do not. My questions from last year remain germane and I intend to ask them again (a modified version of them). (this is a repeat, verbatim of last year's point)

Third, I think we are seeing a growing problem with generally unhelpful behavior from long time contributors. This manifests itself in things like factions, factionalism, vested contributor behavior, ownership, shooting the messenger and "untouchable" long term editors who have vociferous defense choruses.

On the choices[edit]

First... these are my choices. Yours should be based on your own mind, but if I'm able to help, great. Also, although there are N slots, my final votes may support more, or less, than N people. If I support them, it means I'd be happy to see them on. So what's the difference between a support and a strong support or an oppose or a strong oppose? Just that the strongs are... well... more strongly felt, and I'd be more likely to actively try to sway you to agree with me, if we happened to meet over beers or whatever. But do as you like. The fate of the free world probably does NOT depend on this outcome.

Next: If you want to discuss or debate my choices with me, I'd be happy to do so, use the talk page of this page: User talk:Lar/ACE2010. This is in my userspace, and while all pages belong to the community, that means that the way I do things (for example, if you post it, it's staying... you can line it out but not edit it away once you said it) goes unless you successfully MFD this page. See the top of my talk page for that.

The tables[edit]

Currently Running[edit]

This analysis is complete. Hey, the election's almost over anyway. ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User/Talk/Contribs	Statement and details	Rights	Edits (see Note)	Since	My thoughts	Intended vote
Casliber • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[1] A, (ex)Arb	76277	2006-05-05	Now fully reviewed and my concerns remain. Other folk have raised concerns about the Law incident but that's not my biggest concern. Rather, I have concerns at how much Casliber tends to shield problematic editors and how he seems to be (radically?) inclusionist, so far as to overlook disruptive behavior by editors who are also inclusionist. Two words: A Nobody. Shielded that editor for far too long while throwing the book at whoever came up against him and his ARSing about and AFD chicanery. Also tends to be dismissive of discussion on his talk page which is not a good sign. Note: Gave thorough answers to my questions. Interesting contrasts with previous years.	Oppose
Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[2] A	22036	2005-08-08	Mostly good, if somewhat terse, answers on the general questions. Dodged GQ7, I feel. I agree with his view of strict/lenient. IQ 6 seemed kind of marshmallowy... Missed the mark on IQ 10... I think the IP is asking about the seriousness of the name (as well as it being a bit chauvinistic...) As for my questions: muffed 1C... it took way too much work to get a straight answer on 2b... arbs should not be evasive. That the answer was good is a mitigating factor, but still. Also evaded 2c. Blew off 3, 4, most of 5, most of 6, most of 7. Missed the mark on 10. All in all, this adds up to an oppose. Note: has committed to answer some (but not necessarily all) of my questions.	Oppose
David_Fuchs • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[3] A	26502	2005-10-15	This is a tough one for me... I have mixed feelings. I liked the answer to individual Q #2 but did not at all like the answer to IQ #5... (Note, SirFozzie, who I support, spoke/voted against that motion IIRC) NW's IQ#6 gave some good views into thinking. Mostly like his answers to my questions, although I found a few somewhat terse. I'm thinking support although I have to confess it's lukewarm. Note: has answered my questions	Support
Elen_of_the_Roads • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[4] A	7892	2008-05-11	Wow. I was going to go through the answers to the generals and pick stuff apart and I'm not finding anything. I am very impressed with the depth of thought and analysis about this weird beast called ArbCom (not a court, not a legislative body, not a mediation team, not a police force but has aspects of all). Really has head screwed on right, and has real world experience that seems like it would help a lot (more than lawyerly experience, even) The answers to GQ3, GQ5, IQ5 and IQ7 in particular stood out as exceedingly well analyzed. Good answers in general to my questions. Strong support. My only concern is that the candidacy may be a bit premature. But I've reviewed the arguments against and in this case do not find them compelling. Note: has answered my questions	Strong support
Georgewilliamherbert • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[5] A,EFM	13211	2005-07-31	Nope. I was waiting for something to push me into support. All I see is more reminders of his inflexible approach. This may be colored by some previous interactions with him where I felt he was on the wrong side of the issue and (naturally) I wasn't. Too process wonky, tendency to throw the book on scant evidence, and tendency to not back down unless you take him to AN/I and sometimes not even then. On the questions: GQ7 is NOT a hard question. Not all that impressed with answers in general. Oppose. Note: working way through my questions but so far has answered very few.	Oppose
GiacomoReturned • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[6] none	6827	2009-05-26	Meh. His answers seem kind of phoned in. But all in all I still think he'd be good for the project in this role. Support, given that I wished he was running, but it's somewhat lukewarm at best. Note:still working way through my questions?	Support
Harej • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[7] A	15497	2004-11-26	He may be young but he has a good head on his shoulders. Like his approach. I think all in all he'd be a net positive. Note: answered all my questions and was pretty thorough about it.	Support
Iridescent • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[8] A	146284	2006-02-15	Good question answers. Sound judgment for the most part but missed the mark on CC (GQ 6: CC is NOT about content but about behavior), also a meh on IQ1. Great answer on IQ3. Agree with IQ9 ( SA no doubt wanted a "ban the UFOlogist" answer) Passable job on my questions but not stellar. Had the guts to speak frankly about problems with ArbCom in the past. Net positive, especially in this field. Note: finished my questions	Support
Jclemens • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[9] A	26102	2006-08-24	~~This is a very hard one to call.~~ called it.. the last few followup answers to my questions convinced me... Support. (from before) Even though Jclemens answered the questions about as thoroughly as one could ask for, and I really like his campaign pledge, especially point 1 "Resolve issues that come to the Arbitration Committee's attention rapidly, fairly, and with the least disruptive outcomes possible.", I still feel like I'm missing something somewhere. Perhaps we just haven't interacted enough for me to form a clear perception. But I'm left with a nagging negative feeling over his BLP answer. I can't fault it as incorrect in any particular way viewed from a policy perspective, and I actually like some of the proposed solution, but it does leave me feeling like Jclemens is "soft on BLP". I can't bring myself to oppose on a hunch but I also can't support. Abstain for right now although I'm leaning toward a weak support. Note: answered my questions very thoroughly and thoughtfully.	Support
John_Vandenberg • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[10] A,C,O, (ex)Arb	46836	2004-09-05	not yet reviewed but preliminary musings are concerned about sticktoitiveness... (I'm not even concerned about the time issues, those are fine. More that he'd take another runner when things got dicey.) Also concerned about pragmatic vs. idealistic approach. The dustup with FT2 during the election gives me pause, he's going for the throat it seems like which may not be the best approach. He also has made some suggestions privately that I don't agree with (which I will discuss with him, but not others, I'm afraid) . The Mattisse mentorship offer worries me. I recall how when we were trying to mentor PM, it seemed like JV left Durova and me twisting for a while, too. Dodged my "sleep" question, I feel. General questions seem like the answers were phoned in (contrast with Elen's very thoughtful answers) Also, I agree with NW's assessment of the Date delinking case as very disappointing. Threw the book at everyone, even those admins trying to help. I campaigned strongly for JV when he ran last so this is a hard thing to say, but I'm not seeing it as a good thing having him back on the committee. It may not the end of the world, though. Oppose. Note: working way through my questions	Oppose
Loosmark • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[11] Rv	8186	2007-12-26	I have concerns about some points expressed. Not sure this is a serious candidate. I agree with Heimstern, topic bans are not good. Has there been reform since then? In general I wasn't impressed with the general answers but Loosmark came up with an idea that might be worth further investigation: setting up a system for cases to be investigated by impartial outside parties instead of relying solely on the litigants to present evidence. On balance, I don't think Loosmark has what it takes to be an arbitrator at this time, despite some good ideas. Maybe at some future point with some seasoning. However given the socking it will be a distant future, if at all. Note: working way through my questions, hasn't answered all of them.	Oppose
Newyorkbrad • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[12] A,C,O, Arb	25894	2006-02-25	Still not yet decided completely but I am very concerned by NYB's tendency to be overly lenient. The debacle of a month's delay during the CC case is not a positive factor either. NYB should have handed his duties off instead of letting things drag, and then when the proposed decision was finally issued, backing away from hard choices. This will be a hard decision. NYB is 100% correct about the importance of the BLP problem. I'm just not convinced he has the mettle to come to grips with the troublemakers.... this highlights the problem nicely. Note: Finished, did a very thorough job on my questions. If only his actions matched his words. This is the oppose I regret the most.	Oppose
Off2riorob • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[13] Rv	43780	2008-12-04	I'm not sure this is a serious candidate. If this candidate isn't running on a lark, they are confused about what makes a good arbitrator. Their positions are nebulous and when questioned, they give platitudes in response rather than thoughtful answers. Sorry, not at this time. Fortunately I don't think my strong oppose will be needed, this candidate's chances are slim. Note: seems to be done, but omitted answers to some, to the point where others repeated the questions.	Strong Oppose
PhilKnight • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[14] A	62274	2006-07-17	I'm not sure this is a serious candidate. Gave lightweight answers to the generic (softball) questions and although one of the earliest candidates, has only given 1 sentence answers to 2 of my questions, which answers show little thought. Not very impressed with this candidate, at this point, although I could change my view if warranted. So far not seeing any reason to. Note: has committed to answer some (but not necessarily all) of my questions.	Oppose
Sandstein • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[15] A	41849	2005-07-31	No need for review. However, an additional negative is his view in the BLP RfC Phase 1 Note: Has declared that he will not be answering my questions. Given that the generic questions are sadly deficient in the areas mine touch on (BLPs, flagged revisions, outing, stalking, vested contributors, factionalism, etc), I will have a hard time determining where Sandstein stands on matters of importance, so I will have no choice but to oppose, reluctantly. I suspect I may not be alone in that view. Badgering everyone about it didn't help.	Oppose
Shell_Kinney • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[16] A,C,O, Arb	28921	2005-06-10	Not favorable. I think Shell means well but I have concerns about her views on factionalism, as well as on her sense of proportion. The recent talk page exchanges, and the answers given about them are starting t make me trend unfavorable. Could be swayed. However an additional negative is her endorsement of Sandstein's view in the BLP RfC Phase 1 Also another guide brought up the case where Shell was banned from the case page or something to that effect, for getting too involved. That's not good either. Note: Answered my questions thoughtfully and thoroughly. Interesting to compare answers to previous years.	Oppose
SirFozzie • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[17] A,C,O, Arb	8873	2006-02-06	Strong support. SirFozzie has made hard choices and is a firm voice against letting disruptive editors get away with too much. If I had one criticism it is that he recuses too readily. Note: has answered my questions thoughtfully and thoroughly, and gave answers that are similar to his answers last year and the year before.	Strong support
Stephen_Bain • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[18] A, (ex)Arb	12024	2004-10-08	Concerned about inactivity. Concerned about unresponsiveness. Was sometimes good (if slow) when he was active. However, others have raised concerns about unresponsiveness that impacts actual cases and the historical record. As others point out, seems to have come back just to get a seat. At this point barring some major change I'm seeing this candidacy as unfavorable with me all in all. Could be swayed but I doubt it. Note: has not yet committed to answering my questions, more than a day and a half after I posted the question... he eventually did post the questions and answered them himself but he never actually posted an answer to my message on his talk, even after I asked a followup. Good communication is important, and this ties in with the unresponsiveness issue.	Oppose
Xeno • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[19] A,B	82632	2006-07-14	I like tendency not to take a lot of BS. Don't agree with every stance but his quoting Scott MacDonald carries a lot of weight with me, he gets BLP. Some of his other stuff I was iffy on, can't really put my finger on why. (NW brings out that his answers are short and seemed rushed) Lukewarm support. Probably oppose in any other year. Note:answered my questions	Support

Comments on the entire field:

Meh. Is this the best we got? Some good candidates to be sure but on the whole a rather weak field. But can you blame anyone for choosing not to stand? ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

People I wish were running[edit]

~~Giano~~ ... now IS running
Scott MacDonald
Mackenson

Withdrawn[edit]

User/Talk/Contribs	Statement and details	Rights	Edits (see Note)	Since	My thoughts	Intended vote
Balloonman • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[20] none	22656	2006-04-01	A bit put off by his/her role in multiple RfA nominations (where it seemed there was an implication of "it's my nom so you know it's quality checked")... in fact this role I think contributed in a minor way to the very problem with RfA that he decries in General Q#4. Found his answers rather short and not very introspective. Answer to GQ#7 criticising the BLP motion completely off... it puts into question his answer to Individual Q#1... I am not sure I do trust him to be completely impartial. IQ 2b) (a copy of my own #2b... not sure what happened there) shows lack of thought, I can easily conceive of a candidate for US Representative that we would consider not notable. We had a candidate from the Natural Law Party in my district and I'm not sure they got any votes at all. Probably not notable. Other parts good.... IQ 3b is a pretty poor read of what really happened, policy was on the side of those deleting the articles and distorting the record that way might not really be a good approach. this may be a sticking point for me on this candidate. I'm afraid this is a deal breaker resulting in an oppose for me. It's one thing to say you think it wasn't handled well, but to misread policy that way? No. I almost stopped reading there but went on. Some good answers to 6 and 7 but the answer to 8 showed lack of understanding of the seriousness of the problem I'm referring to. Note: completed my questions.	Oppose
FT2 • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[21] A,EFM	39260	2004-07-11	Just too much drama. Too many botched things, too many backroom conversations. I think having FT2 on the functionaries list where he can give advice, and spot nits in drafts, and generally act in an advisory capacity is the right role for him. But not as an Arbitrator. Really I don't think FT2 can successfully discharge obligations given controversy surrounding him. This hurts because I find him an engaging conversationalist and expect I'd enjoy having a beer or two with him. But I just don't trust him to do the right thing at the right pace any more. Note: working way through my questions, but so far has answered none.	Oppose
HJ_Mitchell • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[22] A	39817	2009-03-30	not fully reviewed. Now won't need to... but this candidate deserves full marks for standing aside when the field filled out. I think that's a sign of maturity. Perhaps next year? Note: Did take a good cut at my questions, with some thorough and well spoken answers.	Undecided
N419BH • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[23] R,Rv	6280	2009-01-15	Not fully reviewed. Now won't need to... but this candidate deserves full marks for standing aside when the field filled out. As with HJ, I think that's a sign of maturity. Perhaps next year or the year after? Note: Answered most/all of my questions. I have to confess I'm not totally impressed with some of the answers, they don't show enough thought... but perhaps with time will come depth.	Undecided

Notes[edit]

Rights and edits are as of 15 Nov noonish Pacific time (18:00 ish UTC) except for any candidates that entered after that. These include
- PhilKnight (later 15 Nov)
- Newyorkbrad (16 Nov)
- Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry (17 Nov)
- Casliber, David Fuchs (19 Nov)
- Elen_of_the_Roads, N419BH, Shell Kinney (20 Nov)
- Jclemens, Xeno, HJ Mitchell, Sandstein (22 Nov)
- Giano, Iridescent, Loosmark, FT2, GWH (23 Nov)

NOTE ALSO: These rights/edits are for the current account only. I am not counting previous accounts that people abandoned. (If you storm off and scramble your password, those edits are dead to me... I've not stormed off yet and I consider it a bit of a black mark to do that) If you want totals across all accounts, check out NW's page, I think he did the math.

Positions
- Arb=Current Arbitrator Ex Arb=Former Arbitrator
Rights
- A=Admin B='crat
- C=Checkuser O=Oversighter (requires identification to WMF)
- S=Steward (requires identification to WMF, no other non en:wp rights will be shown)
- IPBE=IP Block Exempt EFM=Edit Filter Manager R=Rollbacker Rv=Reviewer (and not an admin)

Postscript[edit]

Thanks for reading this far, hope it was of some help to you…. Your mileage may vary… think for yourself! Comments welcomed (Use the talk page) but please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks!