Jump to content

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/AC2012: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→1. Richwales: In his guide, Arbitrator Coren suggests that Richwales would be a stronger candidate after a year of e.g. clerking, and that sounds like an excellent suggestion.
→Abilities: Role-playing game: Indeed, Paladins must be lawful good
Line 186: Line 186:
|Nuclear Warfare || 12|| 16 ||13 || 14 || 15 ||14 || Lawful good || Cleric? ||7 ||Human
|Nuclear Warfare || 12|| 16 ||13 || 14 || 15 ||14 || Lawful good || Cleric? ||7 ||Human
|-
|-
|Casliber || 17|| 17 || 16|| 16 || 16 ||17|| Neutral good || Paladin ||11||Human
|Casliber || 17|| 17 || 16|| 16 || 16 ||17|| Lawful good || Paladin ||11||Human
|-
|-
|Elen of the Roads ||14 || 17<ref>Dexterity occasionally drops to 12.</ref>||15 || 16 || 16 ||16 || Chaotic good || [[Darkover series#Ridenow of Serrais|Interspecies diplomat]] ||8 || [[Arena (Star Trek: The Original Series)|Metron]]
|Elen of the Roads ||14 || 17<ref>Dexterity occasionally drops to 12.</ref>||15 || 16 || 16 ||16 || Chaotic good || [[Darkover series#Ridenow of Serrais|Interspecies diplomat]] ||8 || [[Arena (Star Trek: The Original Series)|Metron]]

Revision as of 16:36, 16 November 2012

My voting guide is likely to be

My 2012 guide agrees (so far) with the guides of Reaper Eternal---and even the evaluations by Sven Manguard, unlike our 2011 guides.... :)


My 2011 guide

  • agreed mostly with the evaluations by Ealdgyth, Elonka, SandyGeorgia, Badger Drink , and Wizardman. All of these guides emphasize the candidates' recent behavior---a better predictor of ArbCom performance than the questionnaire response.
  • 2011 guides with greater (wonkish) emphasis on Wikipedia policies and ArbCom processes were written by HJ Mitchell and Nuclear Warfare.

Recommendations

My recommendations are the following:

Support

1. Keilana

Good writer of articles, including science and women. Seems like a calm and clear leader on administrator tasks. Her talk page shows endorsements and encouragement from many administrators whose judgment I trust.

Because of her productivity and fire-fighting at drama boards (rather than pyrotechnics), she has a relatively low profile. Thus I rank her first strategically.

2. Nuclear Warfare

Long serving clerk to ArbCom, noted for professionalism and calmness. I rank him second strategically, because he is new. Non-strategically, I would rate him just below the three returning arbs I support.

3. Casliber

Complete support.

Casliber is still actively writing articles, and I see him mostly at Did You Know. He appears at the Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents (AN/ANI) doing the Lord's Work, quickly resolving disputes or refocusing discussions gone astray. He stood alone, pulling the emergency cord to stop the oncoming civility-enforcement trainwreck: Luckily, the other administrators finally came to their senses (mostly), and did not ban Malleus (the editor who, with Dr. Blofeld, is the most generous with new editors and whose talk page is filled with thanks from new editors, teachers, students, etc.).

4. Elen of the Roads

Good heart, sound head, winning personality.

Outside of ArbCom duty, she is active in mediating and settling disputes, sometimes with a soft voice and other times by cracking a whip (that needed to be cracked).

Even if she makes a misstep, she does it with such intelligence and style that it is a pleasure to watch, at least in retrospect.... (At my RfC/U, I asked her to resign from ArbCom and as an administrator and she declared me a "net negative" and predicted my banning, I think.)

Like NewYorkBrad and Casliber, Elen has maturity and gravitas---the ability to speak with her own voice, even when alone against a crowd, and immediately improve a discussion.

5. Newyorkbrad

NYB has earned 80% support from the community in previous elections, and there is no reason to vote against him, and many reasons to support him.

One caveat: I don't understand how he could have signed the "Civility Enforcement" decision, which made an unwarrantedly expansive reading of WP:Disruptive..., given his intelligence and principle.

Likely support

1. Worm That Turned

My 2011 guide stated that I looked forward to seeing Worm That Turned earn the community's trust and win election in 2012. Thus I am pleased to support him now. (Truth be told, my opposition with great likelihood resulted in his losing the election....)

He is a young man who is unusually mature and who is growing every month. He still makes mistakes, but he learns from his mistakes more than anybody I've seen on Wikipedia. He has served as clerk this last year (for part of the year) and so is familiar with many aspects of ArbCom.

In 5 years, he shall be an even better candidate, but I think that he can contribute this year. If he shall make a mistake on ArbCom, it will be because he will be impatient to resolve a problem, that may be better left unresolved.... Some problems should be accepted as inevitable parts of community life, of course.

I'll support him unless there are unusually many qualified candidates.

2. Guerillero

I supported him to become an administrator in 2011, and he has been good, in my memory at least. He has also volunteered as a clerk for ArbCom, and so won an endorsement from (fellow ArbCom-clerk) User:Reaper Eternal, whose judgement I trust.


Neutral

1. Pgallert

A thoughtful editor who is not an administrator. Obviously smart and articulate, Pgallert avoids cliches. In previous years, I would have supported Pgallert. If Pgallert does not get elected, perhaps clerking at ArbCom would be beneficial to all.

2. Kww

Kww gets to the point, with no distractions about apple-pie, motherhood, and the flag (e.g., NPOV), etc. This shows confidence and self-awareness, and is refreshing. It would be intellectually deadening to have an ArbCom filled only with policy paraphrasers.

The concern is his ability to collaborate with other ArbCom members. At least arbitrator Coren has been impressed with Kww, and an endorsement from Coren suggests we all consider Kww especially thoughtfully, rather than just reject an unconventional personality.

Likely oppose

Both of these candidates have many positive features, and so I would urge every voter to make their own investigation here. For these candidates, the guides disagree, and so we all need to think carefully about these two. :)

1. Richwales

Richwales is running on two pillars, civility and NPOV.

Only "civility" raises discussion on Wikipedia, so it's important to consider Richwales's participation in civility discussions.

In the 2012 ArbCom case entitled "civility enforcement", Rich Wales seemed to criticize only Malleus. A principled leader of the community should have addressed at least some of the incivility and personal attacks against Malleus. I shall double check the extensive discussion to see whether Rich was even-handed in any of the proceedings, in which case I would reconsider him. Unfortunately, my review of the ArbCom case and his self-nomination raises a strong concern that he would be even more one-sided in civility enforcement than the existing ArbCom, which at least showed some notice that there was "uneven" enforcement of the civility policy.

I am also concerned that Rich has so far ignored procedural questions of ArbCom: In Civility Enforcement,

  1. the topic of the case had a wide scope, but the decision was focused narrowly (and one sidedly) on Malleus.
  2. The administrator who filed the case (User:Alexandria) has been (self-requested?) blocked by Hersfold, who did not recuse himself or declare any relation to the community; in contrast, Elen and NewYorkBrad recused themselves, and CasLiber discussed recusing himself (asking for feedback). (Alexandria later reversed the block for violating NPA on JClemens.)
  3. The request for clarification turned into a circus, with most of the committee supporting a de facto ban of Malleus, before some sense was restored.

From these three issues, I suppose that almost everybody can agree that one was a real issue, and perhaps nearly half would agree that two raise concern.

The "Questions for the candidates" section includes question 3 on procedural issues. I shall closely read Rich's forthcoming responses and reassess my likely opposition.

Frankly, Richwales will do a great job 90% of the time. However, I worry that he could be like Hersold and AGK (and many more outside of ArbCom) pushing a schoolboy understanding of civility (focusing on naughty words, rather than on overall behavior) ahead of the other pillars.

In his guide, Arbitrator Coren suggests that Richwales would be a stronger candidate after a year of e.g. clerking, and that sounds like an excellent suggestion.

2. Ks0stm

A new (2011) administrator, and so inexperienced. Wait a few years. He seems to have been calm and a good influence as an administrator, and so in other years I would have considered endorsing him.

3. Beeblebrox

Beeblebrox's history of closing discussions as supporting his opinion rather than as "no consensus" led to his Request for Bureaucratiship's failure. Making policy is appropriate for community-discussion leaders but not for ArbCom.

Beeblebrox seems to be a good and forthright administrator. There were some civility/NPA/fairness issues in 2010, but I haven't seen anything troubling since then.

Oppose

-1 YOLO Swag

The rhetoric disqualifies him, as does his editing history (noted by User:Kurtis).

-2. Jclemens

Jclemens received a charitable endorsement by me in 2012, which I've learned to regret: In 2012, Jclemens made bizarre statements, which were condemned by the other members of ArbCom and which have led to about a dozen retirements of leading editors.

He previously indicated that he would run for re-election---at least he wrote that he would understand the election as a popular vote on his policies, and so I include him. If he clarifies that he won't run, then I would remove him from this list, of course.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Jclemens
  • Jclemens's suggested decision in the Monty Hall problem case would have hamstrung the mathematics project (11.3). In this case, he was also naively lenient in suggested action 1.2.
    Another reason for objection to Jclemens was his repeated support for publicizing confidential materials from a vulnerable user. My vagueness protects privacy, intentionally. At the end, Jclemens clarified that he opposed releasing confidential email, I am glad to add. However ...
On second thought, Jclemens is a reasonable and collaborative ArbCom member. He is not afraid to clarify (alter) his public position when new information comes along. He does not seem to be seeking power or to enjoy the use of administrative/ArbCom sanctions, which is a merit this year, so much so that I do support his re-election.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Qualifications

Understanding and curiosity

  • ArbComm has to read a lot of material, often revolving around content disputes, and so its members must have a good education, simply to keep up, and especially to make wise decisions.
  • Having written GA/FA articles or reviewed GA/FA articles on traditional encyclopedia topics are important merits, showing intellectual power.
  • ArbComm members carry big sticks---and I can show you my bruises---so their public whispers cause hurricanes on Wikipedia. Clear writing is essential, and "negative capability"---silence when we have nothing good to say---is desirable.

Experience, being necessary for mature judgement (Nicomachean Ethics 1142a)

ArbCom is a terrible job, so the volunteers should deserve some appreciation for their hard work. Many members quit, because of the work load and the bitching and moaning of the herd of independent minds called "the community".

Thus, good ArbCom experience is an important merit. Good experience on intellectually and politically demanding committees is another great merit.

As a rule, new administrators should not be on ArbCom.

Two years ago, the new administrator Elen of the Roads had already flourished off-Wikipedia and on-Wikipedia; acting with the other leaders at ArbCom, she has performed exceptionally well on the committee.

Abilities: Role-playing game

See also: WP:Wikipedia is an MMORPG, Dungeons & Dragons gameplay § Ability scores, and Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)

Remember that 10 represents average human ability, so everything above 10 is a (sincere) compliment.

Abilities
Character Strength Dexterity Constitution Intelligence Wisdom Charisma Alignment Class Level Race[1]
Keilana 15 15 ? 14 15 15 Lawful good Wizard Hermione Granger Muggle parents
Nuclear Warfare 12 16 13 14 15 14 Lawful good Cleric? 7 Human
Casliber 17 17 16 16 16 17 Lawful good Paladin 11 Human
Elen of the Roads 14 17[2] 15 16 16 16 Chaotic good Interspecies diplomat 8 Metron
Newyorkbrad 16 16 16 16 17 15 Lawful good Arch-mage 11 Watcher
Worm That Turned 12 14 14 14 13 16 Neutral[3] good Ring bearer [4] 5 Hobbit
Sir Fozzie (Sabbatical) 14 14 14 15 14 14 Lawful good Indefatigable companion 8? WereMuppet
Guerillero Lawful good Cleric? 5 Human
Kww Chaotic good Cleric? Human
Pgallert Neutral good Cleric? Human
Ks0stm Lawful good Cleric? 3 Human
Richwales 11 12 ? 11 12 12 Lawful neutral Cleric? 4? Canuck, eh?
YOLO Swag 10 12 10 10 10 12 Chaotic neutral Rogue 3 Human
Jclemens 16 10 16 16 10 10 Lawful neutral Mentat 8 Vulcan
Coren 18 18 18 18 18 Not applicable Lawful (beyond good and evil) WoMD-Artificer with deathgaze blank and pitiless as the sun 21 Demigod
  1. ^ Hobbits are from the UK, obviously.Humans are from the USA.
  2. ^ Dexterity occasionally drops to 12.
  3. ^ Worm That Turned formerly had a lawful-good orientation. This change of alignment seems not to have been penalized by the Dungeon Master.
  4. ^ Formerly warlord. Again, the change in class does not seem to to have been penalized.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/AC2012&oldid=523346833"