User:Sven Manguard/2012 ArbCom Voter Guide

Introduction

There are two things that I want to communicate before we get started.

First, there is a tendency for people to, at the end of the elections, decide which guide was "right" based on how closely each guide matched the results of the election. The point of a voter guide is not for a guide author to predict who is going to win, but for a guide author to offer their subjective judgement on each individual candidate, as it pertains to the election. A good guide does this using levelheaded analysis, backed where possible with evidence. A bad guide does this based on old grudges. Either way, users should be aware that each guide writer, however respected they are, and however well written their guide happens to be, is pushing an agenda, and one that might not readily be apparent. All guides should be looked at with a critical eye. You are doing a disservice to yourself, and to the community, if you don't.

Second, I will be making my judgements in part based on non-public communications with a number of users, some of whom may be sharing with me information that is itself also non-public. I will not reveal my sources, and I will not reveal details about the communications if I feel that in doing so I would be risking revealing my sources. Ultimately people reading this guide will have to make a value judgement as to whether or not they trust me, and trust that I am accurately reflecting these communications.

Summary

Strong Support	Support	No Vote	Oppose	Strong Oppose
NuclearWarfare (provisional)	Casliber (provisional) (NYR) Elen of the Roads (NYR) Guerillero NewYorkBrad (NYR) Worm That Turned	David Fuchs (provisional) (NYR) Keilana (provisional) Kww (provisional) Pgallert (provisional) PhilKnight (provisional) (NYR) Richwales (provisional) SirFozzie (provisional) (NYR)	Ks0stm (provisional) Xeno (NYR)	Jclemens (NYR) YOLO Swag

Note: "Provisional" means I have not yet made a full analysis, and that my position may change. "NYR" means that the candidate has not yet indicated that they are running.

Analysis (Candidates currently running)

Guerillero

I consider Guerillero to be a Wikipedia friend (which is like a regular friend, except that he doesn't know me very well at all in real life). That obviously colors my judgement, however at the same time I try my hardest to only make friends with people that I trust and respect, I think that Guerillero fits that bill, so yes I'm more likely to support him, but for the reasons I'd be likely to support any candidate.

I was honestly surprised to see Guerillero run, just as I was surprised to see him join up as an ArbCom clerk, because my experience with Guerillero is that he really isn't all that terribly interested in being around or involved in drama. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing for an ArbCom candidate to have a near-aversion to drama, but I'd rather have someone on the committee that's drama-averse than having someone on the committee that becomes part of the drama, and let's face it, that's happened more than once this past term.

There is one rather significant black mark against Guerillero though, and it's what's keeping me out of Strong Support territory. Guerillero was part of the initial small circle of people behind the Wikimedia United States Federation debacle. He, along with Pharos of WMNY and Harej of WMDC and a few other people decided that they wanted a Wikimedia United States Federation, and kind of just dropped it in on everyone else during a monthly IRC meeting of US Wikipedians. I think the whole thing was handled poorly, and it'll be a while before I let that mess stop affecting the way I look at the people behind that proposal. All that being said, Guerillero was the one that handled the debacle the best among that group; he was the first to recognize that the Wikimedia United States Federation idea couldn't be pushed through in light of the opposition we were getting, and was much more ammenable than some at bringing the community in and making changes, even though it slowed down the process. I think it was a mess he never should have been involved in, but one that he handled very well.

For these reasons, I support Guerillero.

Worm That Turned

I summarized my support of this candidate last year by saying that "The candidate is what I describe as a "realistic optimist". It's a trait that's sorely needed on the committee. While Worm That Turned has a lower edit count than I'd like, and lower participation in dispute resolution boards than I'd like, but all of that is more than made up for by the amount of mentoring that the candidate does, which demonstrates that the candidate has much the same experience in pertinent areas as would be gained from working on the formal boards." I've seen nothing to make me change that view, and thus am still inclined towards supporting him.

Moreover, I've found the answers to the general questions excellent. His response to general question 3, item d, subsection iii was brave, and while I think it'll never happen, is still heartening to hear. His answer to general question 3, item c, subsection iii also stood out as a positive. His answer to Rschen7754 question 3 was the only one I found troubling, in fact I strongly disagree with every sentence in the second paragraph of his response. However it's unrealistic to expect to agree with other editors on all points, and I think WTT's judgement is superb in the vast majority of cases.

For these reasons, I support Worm That Turned.

YOLO Swag

As far as I can tell, YOLO Swag (formerly User:NWA.Rep, formerly User:Certified.Gangsta) exists solely to troll ArbCom elections and create inappropriate userpages. His statements since he returned this year, including several railing against me personally, and a few with grossly inappropriate edit summaries, do nothing to endear me to his candidacy.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose YOLO Swag.

Analysis (Candidates not yet running)

Jclemens

During the 2011 election, several voter guides opposed Jclemens for his tendency to take positions that are off the deep end, and for his general harshness. Comments like this, which NuclearWarfare cited in his opposition to Jclemens, illustrate perfectly both Jclemens' tendency to be more aggressive that a situation calls for, and his apparent disdain/lack of respect for people who disagree with him.

Jclemens could have used his narrow re-election as a wake up call, toned it down, at least pretended to treat other people with respect. Instead, he has elevated making absurd, overblown comments to an artform. Jclemens' conduct at the most recent Malleus mess, during which Jclemens said that "Malleus has never been a Wikipedian", was the loudest, and most drama fueling, that I could find.

ArbCom has a credibility issue as it is, and is a drama magnet as it is. A person who fuels drama unnecessarily and acts with open hostility towards those they disagree with, isn't someone that should be involved with ArbCom, unless of course, they are the one whose fate is being adjudicated.

Additionally, Jclemens' statements indicate to me that, should Malleus be even tangentially connected to any future ArbCom cases, Jclemens would move to ban Malleus irregardless of the facts of the case. While I'm not necessarily against banning Malleus at this point, I am very much against Arbs deciding what they want to do with an editor before they even have a case in front of them. That's simply not what I'd want to see in a judge.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose Jclemens.