User:Lar/ACE2008

Introduction

Herewith my thoughts on the 2008 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. Also some of the information here is drawn from, and duplicates, User:MBisanz/ACE2008 (with thanks).

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/ACE2008/row.

On the choices

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 7 slots, my final votes may support more, or less, than 7 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/ACE2008. 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.

Finally: Note that my analysis is based in large part on the answers to my questions, which I gave a great deal of thought to before posing them. Apparently I am not the only person who thought they were important, or cogent... see this thread on Wikipedia Review. I do not always agree with Kato about everything, but I find his analysis (of most of the issues anyway) and mine to be quite congruent.

See also

• Main voting page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote
• Votes so far: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Results (Thank you Gurch!)
• Signpost profiles: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-11-24/ArbCom_elections
• What I did for the 2006 election: User:Lar/ArbComm2006

The tables

Currently Running

This analysis is preliminary. When it isn't I'll say so.

User/Talk/Contribs	Statement and details	Rights	Edits	Since	My thoughts	Intended vote
AnthonyQBachler  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		394	2003-09-16	400 edits and here since the beginning? WP demands more commitment from its arbitrators. Not a serious chance of electing this candidate so no oppose needed.	Abstain
BillMasen  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		1177	2006-06-08	Not sure... has been around but with only 1000 or so edits? Answers to my questions were mostly "OK" but did not impress... abstain tending to oppose but an oppose may not be needed, I don't see this candidate carrying the day.	Abstain
Carcharoth  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	44,056	2005-01-08	Hangs out at AN/I a lot (usually a minus) but is a very calming influence. "it is important to get our approach to biographies of living people as good as it can be, as quickly as possible." ... strongly agree! Says he has more to say about BLP. Would like to hear it. Realises the scale of the problem. Inclined to support, but still more analysis needed as I have not encountered him (memorably) enough. However I must point out in response to "My favourite colour is Lar. Because it smiles a lot" that Lar is not a colour.	Support
Casliber  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	44,885	2006-05-05	A psychiatrist (who presumably can be validated since real name is available)! Perhaps we need one of those. I like the triage and more visiblity for the BLP noticeboard ideas. ... has not finished answering my questions so have not completely evaluated yet. Also, messed up the numbering of the questions so doesn't know wikisyntax backwards and forwards yet :) Tending toward support anyway.	Support
Charles_Matthews  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A,O,Arb	166,575	2002-02-25	I have a great deal of respect for Charles and for his contributions to the project. I was, however, quite disappointed in his initial answers to my questions. They tend to be way too terse to give a really good view into his thoughts. Contrast his answers to most of the questions posed him with the answers he gave SlimVirgin. THOSE answers are very useful and give great insight. I wish he had treated the rest of the questions with the same thoughtfulness. I am not yet decided but I really think ArbCom needs some new thinking. Not sure yet. Update: The fact that he's showing some backbone in the recent Giano/SV brouhaha is promising. Still undecided but now marginally more positive. Update2: Now swung to a tentative positive based on more thinking about this. We DO need continuity, and Charles indicated privately he plans to take another pass at the questions... as I said, his answers to SV were superb. Perhaps ArbCom will be better served when CM writes more there too.	Support
Cool_Hand_Luke  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	11,270	2004-02-07	Cool Hand Luke's highlighting of the need for speed and transparency are spot on. He did some stellar work in the Mantanmoreland case, and has shown a keen ability to do analysis. His answers to my questions are not yet there. Holding off till then but inclined to give strong support. Update: Has answered my questions and I can find little to fault in them. Clearly has thought about the issues that most concern me at some length. I think he would be an excellent arbitrator, with a good mix of analytical and reflective skills, as well as the ability to clearly express matters (such as opinions) in plain terms. Strong support	Strong support
Coren  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	9,084	2003-05-27	An old hand. Talks a good game on the problems but doesn't yet clearly articulate how to solve them. Did not answer questions explicitly. Agree with Kato that opposing "opt out", as this candidate does, is not a good thing. Undecided Later: now more favourably disposed, per discussion on the talk page of this very page. Willing to give the benefit of the doubt and at least not oppose pending more research.	Abstain
Dream_Focus  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		636	2006-07-18	636 edits in 2.5 years? We ask more of our arbitrators in committment and experience... Statement lacks focus (arbitration is about much more than article deletion!) Few or no questions answered yet. Probably no serious chance of election, so oppose not needed.	Abstain
Fish_and_karate  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	26,764	2005-03-31	f/k/a: Neil (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Proto (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) We disagree about anonymity but I find little else to fault in his answers. Has been a voice of reason in the past. Not sure he's electable but it would be a good thing. No, make that a very good thing.	Strong support
George_The_Dragon  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	R	4,338	2006-01-30	Absolutely stellar answers to my questions. Who is this fellow? Relatively low edit count may preclude his election.	Strong support
Hemlock_Martinis  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	13,135	2006-04-03	No evidence of deep thinking in his answers to my questions, rather dismissive of the problems. Update: Took a second pass (see User talk:Lar/ACE2008 talk page) Better. Still not positive but inclined not to oppose	Abstain
Jayvdb  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A,O	31,018	2004-09-05	A more complete analysis to be posted but know John would be a great arbitrator... now if he would only answer my questions and prove it!	Strong support
Jdforrester  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A,C,O	15,594	2003-02-27	A more complete analysis to be posted but I do not think the IRC situation has been handled well. Has not answered my questions yet. Also seems rather dismissive of questions from others. We ask questions to understand thinking. Refusing to comment on cases and other arbitrators? How are we to judge the future? Tending toward opposition at this point, which is too bad as have worked with him in the past and found I liked his direct interaction style. Reserve final judgement till all questions answered (and till I see some votes in current matters)	Oppose
Jehochman  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	19,492	2005-03-22	I think he'd be a pretty good arbitrator. More later...	Support
Justice_America  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		168	2008-06-12	168 edits? Not really a serious candidate. Should not waste our time this way.	Strong Oppose
Kmweber  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	R	6,332	2004-05-08	Refusal to answer questions is a non starter. Block record is a non starter. I could go on, but why?	Strong Oppose
Lankiveil  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	8,239	2004-08-12	not evaluated yet	Undecided
Lifebaka  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	8913	2007-01-21	Not evaluated yet.	Undecided
Privatemusings  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		4,329	2007-09-24	f/k/a: Petesmiles (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Purples (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Thepmaccount (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Littlevixensharpears (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) BigOleBarry (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Why oh why not? (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Nowthennowthenurrgeurrgeurrg (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Privatemusing (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Incapable of giving a straight answer about anything, and not willing to accept personal responsibility. Would be an astoundingly bad arbitrator. The thing is, I think he's a nice guy and all, means well. But no. Full disclosure, he and I have a bet going about who the top 7 spots are going to be, I win if he's wrong, so I'll be trying to make sure the order comes out different than he predicted. :)	Strong Oppose
Risker  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	9,963	2005-12-27	More analysis needed but inclined to support. However, disagree with statements about CUs regarding the amount of discretion CUs have on other projects, which suggests not very well versed in other projects. This has been addressed on the talk page. New concern, some of what she said leads me to believe she apparently thinks it's OK for one rogue (not rouge) admin to overturn sanctions. Don't see how an arbitrator can arbitrate with no teeth. This is very concerning and if not satisfactorily resolved, starts to push me away from the initial support I intended. It may not be what she really meant though. Update: There has been a long exchange of views on Risker's questions page... while we don't necessarily agree on everything, she obviously has the best interests of the project at heart. And another update. Have now read Risker's answers to my questions. Am mightily impressed. Also, per SandyGeorgia's analysis. Swung to strong support.	Strong support
Rlevse  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A,B,C	61,355	2005-11-15	Have worked closely with R and like approach, but have some concerns. More analysis needed but a likely support.	Undecided
RMHED  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	R	9,286	2006-02-08	Not evaluated yet. Did not like him suggesting that reverting a candidate one minute late might be goodness (yes, he asked, but some asks are really suggestions)...	Undecided
Roger_Davies  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		18958	2005-09-17	Not evaluated yet. But I heard someone characterise him as "a clone of Kirill Lokshin"... that's pretty promising if true. Kirill and I have had our differences but by and large he has been a satisfactory arbitrator and we could use more like him. more later but likely support. Update, has answered my questions. Thought 5e and 6e could have been answered better but liked most of the rest. Declined a fair number of UC's questions. I'm not quite as enthused as some other editors are but I think if elected he'd make a good enough arbitrator.	Support
Shell_Kinney  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		25557	2005-06-10	Not evaluated yet. Ran last year I think.	Undecided
SirFozzie  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	6,547	2006-02-06	Have worked closely with this editor. Reasoned and calm for the most part. More analysis needed but inclined to support strongly	Support
The_Fat_Man_Who_Never_Came_Back  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		6371	2006-05-29	I urged him to run. Sure to be a colorful candidate. Probably vandalising an arbcom page was not his brightest move, but he has a lot of serious ideas. Should not be written off as a joke candidate. Answers to my questions were superb.	Support
Trojanpony  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		165	2005-12-06	165 edits in almost 3 years? Trojan pony or Trojan horse? Not a serious candidate. Doubt I need to actually oppose but will if I need to.	Oppose
Vassyana  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	10,892	2005-10-16	Good opening statement, agree that devolution is important. Not very familiar with this candidate before they ran. Best answer to "one word to describe ideal arbitrator" (Unnecessary!) but has not yet answered a large fraction of the questions. After several weeks, better is expected. We need candidates who can write well and move things along crisply, as ArbCom has been laggy. There are apparently better candidates out there.	Abstain
WJBscribe  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A,B	44,088	2006-11-20	Says "astounded by the trust the community has shown", which seems rather an odd thing to say. Gave long and thoughtful answers to my questions, and I find myself in agreement with most of them. Have worked with a little and found him OK. I can't seem to get really excited, but I think would be a competent arbitrator so I can't see a reason to oppose. Seems a shoo-in to me.	Support
White_Cat  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	IPBE	42,914	2005-02-04	f/k/a: Cool Cat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Coolcat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)) Completely unsuitable temperament. Nice guy as long as does not lose temper.	Strong Oppose
WilyD  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	17,436	2005-09-30	Seems to be mostly on the right track, but answers don't show quite as much thoughtfulness (or completeness) as I would have hoped. Did not like BLP answers. Will not oppose but I think there are better candidates out there. Perhaps next year.	Abstain
Wizardman  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	51,465	2006-03-09	Good answers to questions for still being in uni. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ginger_Jolie shows he gets the BLP problem. Agree with his thinking on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elonka or not, it shows he's not one to pull punches in dispute resolution, and is willing to tackle them. Good ideas on reform. I'm not quite sure he's electable (and I can't quite put my finger on why) but he would be acceptable if elected.	Support

Withdrawn

User/Talk/Contribs	Statement/Detail	Rights	Edits	Since	My thoughts	My intended vote
Bishzilla  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	1148	2006-10-24	(sock of Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) Bishonen has some interesting and important views and her candidacy would have been a real opportunity for "put up or shut up". Now that she has withdrawn, with a reason of not being willing to shoulder the workload, she has less (but not zero) reason to complain. Withdrew at 19:30 on November 17, 2008.	Support
Catherine_de_Burgh  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		674	2006-12-11	(sock of Giano II (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)) Not a real candidate. Note that I supported Giano last year. Withdrew on 23:04, November 18, 2008.	Abstain
Phil_Sandifer  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	16587	2004-04-18	Phil too has some interesting ideas but I think he has shown that he may not have the temperament and wisdom needed for the role. Withdrew at 02:55 on November 19, 2008.	Oppose
NWA.Rep  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	R	3,886	2006-02-12	f/k/a: Freestyle.king (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Not a serious candidate. Withdrew on 13:47, November 24, 2008.	Strong Oppose
Hersfold  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	19,620	2006-12-21	Not evaluated yet. Sorry I didn't get to you. Withdrew at 04:22, on November 25, 2008.	Undecided
Secret  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A	3,241	2007-09-22	f/k/a: Jaranda (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Aranda56 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Moneyballing (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Serious concerns about suitability for the role. More analysis needed but inclined not to support. Withdrew at 16:25, on November 25, 2008.	Oppose
Gwen_Gale  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page		28004	2006-11-23	f/k/a: Wyss (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (and at least one other I believe) Impressive contribution counts in the time since name change. Only been an admin for 6 months, may not have requisite experience. Did not think answers to most questions showed enough depth and thoughtfulness. Terseness sometimes is warranted but a clear articulation of a nuanced point of view is often what is needed. Did not see evidence of deep thinking. Others have highlighted issues that concern me. Gwen has made good contributions to the project but ArbCom may not be the best place for further contributions. Suspect an oppose is not needed, abstain for now (but will oppose if needed) NOTE: Having the chutzpah to block Rebecca for edit warring scores her some points in my book... we need people who don't let Meatball:VestedContributors get away with stuff. Whether that block at that time was the most prudent (or justified) thing to do is a different question. I'm not sure it was, necessarily. Withdrew at 05:42 on December 1, 2008 after the election started.	Abstain
Sam_Korn  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	statement  • stmt. talk  • questions vote page	A,C,O	21,047	2004-10-08	(f/k/a Smoddy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)) Sam was a good arbitrator before. Have worked with him as a fellow CU and like his approach. Did not like the position he took during the Mantanmoreland aftermath, may need to ask him about that in more detail. More analysis needed but inclined to support. Withdrew at 22:12 on 1 December 2008 after the election started.	Support

Postscript

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!