 |
|
Note to those who were hoping for useful information from this guide: Sorry it's so skimpy. I just haven't been able to muster the drive to evaluate the candidates clearly; real life is taking priority. In the end, I voted heavily based on the recommendations of others whom I most trust, with a little bit of gut instinct thrown in. I know that doesn't you make your decision much, though. Sorry about that.
It's that dang time of year again.
My position is the same as last year. Content is king; conduct is good, but handling only conduct allows civil POV pushers to run amok. The committee must handle both. It should not decide how articles should read, but it should be ready to make judgments like "User X has engaged in original research (or fill in some other content policy)" and dish out sanctions accordingly.
Another important point: ArbCom screwups have far-reaching consequences. For this reason, candidates should be screened thoroughly. My standard is that the default vote for any candidate is "oppose". The onus is on the candidate to convince me to support. And there is no neutral with me: a candidate earns a support or receives the default oppose. Those are my rules, and I will follow them even if it means I support fewer candidates than there are vacant seats. I would rather have a small committee of people in whom I am confident than a large one with some members in whom I am not. Frankly, I encourage others to consider following these rules as well. Why should we liberally support people for a position like this that gives them a vote that, like it or not, has the potential to really screw Wikipedians over?
Making this more difficult is the draconian regime the current election coordinators are running that is stifling attempts to ascertain information. Choosing one set of questions that are the only ones to be asked to all the candidates effectively says "voters who want to know something different about all the candidates, sucks to be you." One size does not fit all, coordinators. For my part, and this is addressed more to the candidates than the coordinators: I'm totally going to follow the guidelines, but will also feel free to ask any additional questions I want at candidates' talk pages and, like it or not, I will be taking those answers into account. Since, as I've said, my default position is to oppose, this means candidates who do not answer my questions will most likely get an oppose vote for me (since, by the very fact that I've bothered asking a question, I show that I have not decided either in favour or against, in which case I would not bother with a question).
I've struck these rules I've listed because I'm not sure I'm going to follow them. I'm having a hard time determining an opinion on several candidates and I'm having a hard time making myself willing to read carefully. Sorry to be unhelpful, but real life is really throwing curve balls at me these days.
- Balloonman:
- Casliber: Casliber was one of the best arbs during his tenure. Alas, he made a foolish mistake with the Law/Undertow situation and needed to resign over it. I still have confidence in his ability to be a fine arb. Support.
- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry:
- David Fuchs: Need to look closely, leaning support.
- Elen of the Roads:
- FT2: Frankly, I don't really see what's changed since the fiascos that led to his resignation. The fact that he would even think it might be acceptable to post a fully-fledged case that no other arb had voted on at all is pretty much enough for me to unwilling to support him, most likely ever. His evasiveness after the questions about the oversighting of his edits, furthermore, continues to leave me with no real ability to trust him. Oppose.
- Georgewilliamherbert:
- GiacomoReturned: It would take but a few changes in Giano's approach to Wikipedia for him to be a stellar arb. Some people have complained that he's an "anti-arb". I don't see that as negative. Someone whose nature is to question authority would be a welcome voice on the committee. Unfortunately, Giano's grievances, as insightful as they often are, are also often so full of vitriol and exaggeration that to my mind, they lose a huge amount of credibility. I just can't bring myself to think he is the right person for arb, as fine as his content most certainly is.
- Harej:
- Iridescent:
- Jclemens:
- John Vandenberg:
- Loosmark: A user who gets himself topic banned under discretionary sanctions related to Eastern Europe is about the last person I want arbitrating. Oppose.
- Newyorkbrad: Newyorkbrad has his faults as an arb, notably sometimes being too lenient and some unfortunate time management issues, particularly during the recent climate change case (to be fair, this was in part a committee-wide coordination problem). Still, I think the good outweighs the bad. Support.
- Off2riorob:
- PhilKnight:
- Sandstein: Has always seemed too focused on Da Rules and not enough on the bigger picture of improving the encyclopedia. Doesn't really seem like the right user to arbitrate our toughest disputes. Also don't really agree with his approach to the civility issue. Oppose.
- Shell Kinney:
- SirFozzie: Seemed to do pretty well this year, if not really stellar. Leaning toward support.
- Stephen Bain: One of the worst track records of any former arbitrators (see here). Completely unqualified to arbitrate. Oppose.
- Xeno: