User:Elonka/ACE2010
 |
|
Disclaimer: This page expresses my personal opinions and observations only. I encourage all voters to do their own research on the candidates. There are also other guides written by informed and thoughtful Wikipedians. I encourage you to read those as well before deciding how to vote.
Overview
For those who aren't sure what this is about: The Arbitration Committee is part of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. In fact, ArbCom is pretty much the last stop. For a general real world analogy, ArbCom is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. The arbitrators don't make decisions on article content, but they do issue rulings on complex disputes relating to user conduct, and they have considerable authority within the wiki-culture. Members of the committee are usually elected for two-year terms (sometimes one), with a new batch elected each year.
On November 14, candidates began self-nominating, and answering questions from the community. This process continued until November 23, after which nominations were no longer allowed, but the candidates continued with the community Q&A process. On November 26, the community began a 10-day voting period, and pretty much anyone could vote for or against as many candidates as they wished. Preliminary results were posted on December 7. Within the next week or so, Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales will make the final decision. He normally just takes everyone who has the highest percentages, though he does have the option to choose other people if he so desires. This year, there are twelve vacant seats to be filled.
This page that you are reading, contains my (Elonka's) thoughts on the 2010 crop of ArbCom candidates. My general standards for a candidate are: admin access, integrity, experience with article-writing, and hands-on knowledge of the dispute resolution processes.
To see my thoughts on previous batches, check the history of:
Candidates
Voting is now closed, as of 23:59 UTC (6:59 p.m. Eastern) on Sunday, December 5. The Candidate statements can be seen here. There are 18 candidates, and 12 possible vacancies to be filled. The list of voters was scrutinized for sockpuppets or any other discrepancies, and preliminary results were announced on Wednesday, December 7. Within the next week or so, Jimbo will make the final decision.
- Casliber (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Previous arbitrator, resigned during Law/Undertow controversy
Oppose. In the 2008 election, Casliber had overwhelming support, and I was very much going against popular opinion by opposing him.[1] My reasons for opposing were that I had concerns about his impartiality, and his tendency to protect friends, rather than look out for the good of the project. My opinion was shown to be accurate during the Law/Undertow controversy, when it was revealed that Casliber had stayed silent while being aware of inappropriate behavior by a friend. He resigned because of that, but because of that and other actions, it is clear that his behavior has not changed, therefore I must oppose.
- Note: While I was creating this guide, Casliber seemed to feel that he had the right to come in and change one of my comments about another candidate. This just reinforces my opinion that he does not have the necessary judgment to be an arbitrator. For details, please see page history and the talkpage.
- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Previously known as HawkerTyphoon, though this name has since been impersonated by a vandal account, unrelated to CMLITC.
Weak support. Does a lot of good administrative work, seems level-headed, and has experience in multiple areas of the project. I'd feel better if he had more content contributions, such as a GA or FA, but other than that he appears a good candidate.
- David Fuchs (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Support. Good content contributions, seems level-headed. Has not been super active at the arbitration pages recently, but did offer some comments in the past, so definitely has some experience with the process.
- Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Weak oppose. Has only been an admin since October 2010. Not much in the way of content contributions, either, and a fairly low contrib count.[2] Lots of effort at the admin noticeboards, but still too inexperienced for me to support. Elen may well be a fine arbitrator someday, but I'd like to see her get more hands-on experience with the fundamental purpose of the project, creating articles, instead of just hanging out at AN and ANI all day.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Weak support. Concerns about time available and content creation, but his judgment seems sound. If he has the time to be an arb, I support his candidacy.
- GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Also known as Giano (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
- Also known as Giano II (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
- Also known as Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
- Also known as Ka of Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
- Also known as Conte Giacomo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
- Oppose. Not an admin. Long block log.[3]
- Harej (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Previously known as Messedrocker, though this name has since been impersonated by a vandal account, unrelated to Harej.
- Editor since 2004, admin since 2006. First attempt at adminship in May 2006, second in September 2006. Unsuccessful runs for bureaucratship in March 2007 and August 2009. Ran for arbitrator in 2006,[4] then withdrew. Ran for arbitrator in 2007, withdrew because of age limit
- Oppose. One of my areas of research on a candidate is to check if they have been involved with or offered statements in previous arbitration cases. Looking into Harej's history, I was not impressed by this statement that he offered at a case in January 2010.[5] It shows me that Harej does not yet have the necessary maturity to be an arbitrator.
- Iridescent (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Support. I have disagreed with Iridescent on various things, and have found her comments sometimes to be excessively sharp. But one thing that has always impressed me about her, was her ability to re-examine her own opinions and do her best to look at things fairly, and change her mind if new information came to light. Not everyone can do that. Many people, once they have made up their mind on something, stick to that opinion regardless of anything else that happens. But the fact that Iridescent is someone who can be thoughtful and do her best to do the right thing, means that I support her as an arbitrator.
- See talkpage for discussion with Iridescent about her involvement with the Undertow/Law controversy.
- Jclemens (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Support. I spent some time reviewing the June 2010 RfC and related discussions. There was definitely a spat, but anyone can have a bad day, and I was not impressed by the individual who started the RfC in the first place. Looking deeper into Jclemens' history I found an impressive body of work in many different areas of the wiki. I was impressed by thoughtful comments and obvious dedication to the project, so Jclemens has my support.
- John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Support. Previous arbitrator, elected in 2008, did a fantastic job. Even though his time available is limited, we would be lucky to have him back as an arb.
- Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Existing arbitrator, running for re-election. 2007 statement / questions / votes (support/oppose 552/15)
- Support.
- Off2riorob (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Oppose. Not an admin. Long block log for disruption and edit warring.[6]
- PhilKnight (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Previously known as Addhoc. 2006 RfA
- Oppose. Not much in the way of content contributions, no GA or FA that I could find. He appears to have done some good work for the project, but I'm not certain how to classify it. For example, he has been on WP:MEDCOM since 2009, though in a year of membership, hasn't actually mediated any cases. In terms of his administrative work, I have observed and interacted with him quite a bit in areas of arbitration enforcement, and I have been concerned by his support of editors that I regarded as disruptive. For example, I would occasionally see cases where on-wiki lynch mobs were forming for one reason or another, and PhilKnight would be there with the group, basically parroting accusations by one side. However, when things were investigated later by independent editors, it would be shown that the initial accusations had no foundation in fact (and I never observed PhilKnight as being someone who would go back and amend his prior statements, either). This tendency to jump to conclusions simply because there are loud voices complaining, is not something I want to see in an arbitrator. Ultimately, I am not confident in his judgment, and I remain worried that he's the kind of editor who allows his opinion to be given to him by someone else, rather than taking the time to make up his own mind.
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Support. Does a fair bit of work in arbitration enforcement, so clearly familiar with the processes. Can sometimes be overly focused on rules, and there was a spat where he made a block a bit too quickly. Then again, he was willing to back down and acknowledge consensus to let the block be modified by other admins.[7] I think he'd work very hard as an arbitrator, and would do his best to do the right thing, so he has my support.
- Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Previously known as Jareth
- Has just completed her first year as an arbitrator, and is running for re-election. Related links: 2009 questions, 2006 votes, 2007 votes, and 2008 votes.
- Support. Good arbitrator. I don't agree with everything she says, but I respect that she forms her own opinions and speaks her mind. Strong sense of ethics. I noticed that there are some other guides who were opposing her based on recent comments related to arbitrator Rlevse and an article that got to Featured status when it shouldn't have. However, after reviewing her comments, I do not see anything of major concern. There are definitely people who disagree with her, but that goes with the territory of being an arb. Looking into her work as an arbitrator over the last year, I have been impressed by the time that she has put into the job. There are some arbs who go in to vote and offer an opinion here and there, and others who take on the thankless task of really digging into the massive volume of information about a particular case, and then trying their best to write up fair proposals to make sense of extremely complex situations. Shell Kinney appears to be one of those hardworking arbs, and should definitely be re-elected.
- SirFozzie (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Has just completed his first year as an arbitrator, and is running for re-election. Related links: 2009 questions, 2008 votes
- Support. Though I had doubts about him as a candidate, he has done a good job as arbitrator, and I support his re-election.
- Stephen Bain (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Previous names: thebainer, bainer
- Support. Previous arbitrator (see 2007 election info). Would love to have him back, though I have concerns about his inactivity over the last year.
- Xeno (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions page
- Support. Trusted user, has had bureaucrat access since June 2010. Would be a good arbitrator.
Withdrawn candidates
- The following candidates withdrew either before or during voting.
Balloonman (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions pageFT2 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions pageHJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions pageLoosmark (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) • 2010 questions pageOppose. Not an admin. Multiple blocks this year for disruption and violation of ArbCom restrictions.[11] In fact, during the election it was revealed that he was running a large number of sockpuppet accounts, so he has been blocked again, and after a discussion at the admin noticeboard, permanently banned from the project.
N419BH (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • 2010 questions pageOppose. Not an admin.
Comparison between guide data and actual results
After the voting was completed and this year's election results were in, I went ahead and compiled a chart that rated all the supports and opposes from the 20-odd legitimate guides (I omitted the ones that were obvious satire), and calculated the support/oppose percentages based on that data. Then when the actual voting results from the 850 voters came out, I compared it against the guide predictions. For anyone interested, here is the data. The top 5 candidates were the same between guides and votes, just in a different order. There were some dramatic differences with other candidates though, especially Xeno and John Vandenberg, who did much better in votes than guides; and GiacomoReturned (Giano) and Georgewilliamherbert, who did worse in votes than in guides. Iridescent also did much better in guides than in votes, but still was in the top 5 in both sets of data.
| Candidate | % based on guide data |
Order based on guide data |
Percentage based on prelim results |
Order based on prelim results |
% diff | Order diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newyorkbrad |
91.67% |
2 | 89.01% | 1 | -2.66% | 1 |
| Casliber |
80.95% |
4 | 78.73% | 2 | -2.22% | 2 |
| SirFozzie |
86.36% |
3 | 78.45% | 3 | -7.91% | 0 |
| Iridescent |
95.00% |
1 | 74.04% | 4 | -20.96% | -3 |
| Elen |
70.00% |
5 | 72.57% | 5 | 2.57% | 0 |
| Xeno |
42.86% |
12 | 70.64% | 6 | 27.78% | 6 |
| David Fuchs |
68.42% |
6 | 62.88% | 7 | -5.54% | -1 |
| Chase |
55.56% |
8 | 60.61% | 8 | 5.05% | 0 |
| PhilKnight |
63.16% |
7 | 60.38% | 9 | -2.78% | -2 |
| John Vandenberg |
35.00% |
17 | 57.73% | 10 | 22.73% | 7 |
| Jclemens |
43.75% |
11 | 56.71% | 11 | 12.96% | 0 |
| Shell Kinney |
40.00% |
13 | 56.70% | 12 | 16.70% | 1 |
| Sandstein |
39.13% |
14 | 51.30% | 13 | 12.17% | 1 |
| Stephen Bain |
27.78% |
18 | 45.54% | 14 | 17.76% | 4 |
| Harej |
38.89% |
15 | 44.62% | 15 | 5.73% | 0 |
| Georgewilliamherbert | 46.67% | 9 | 44.26% | 16 | -2.41% | -7 |
| FT2 |
36.36% |
16 | 42.13% | 17 | 5.77% | -1 |
| GiacomoReturned |
45.00% |
10 | 40.77% | 18 | -4.23% | -8 |
| Balloonman |
20.00% |
19 | 38.64% | 19 | 18.64% | 0 |
| Off2riorob |
0.00% |
21 | 16.87% | 20 | 16.87% | 1 |
| Loosmark |
0.00% |
20 | 9.87% | 21 | 9.87% | -1 |
For more comparison data, or to offer feedback, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Feedback#Voter guides.
|
|