User:Worm That Turned/ACE2014

Who am I and should you listen to me?

Hi, I'm Dave or Worm That Turned. I've been on Arbcom for the past 2 years and think I've done an all right job. Incoming arbitrators will find a much more pleasant place to work than I found in my early days and I like to think that I played a part in that.

In my opinion, the most important thing you need to be a good Arbitrator is the ability to form your own opinion and articulate that opinion. The abilities to be able to change your mind and patiently read evidence are also nice to have. Now, most people think they can do this and probably can - so what I really worry about in my guide and in my voting is how you'll cope with being on Arbcom. It's not a nice place to be.

My guide is based on my own opinion - the impression I've been given of the candidates when interacting with them or not. I will not be supporting more than 9 candidates, though I will only oppose those who I do not believe are suitable for Arbcom. I will explain my reasoning, you can take it into account if you like. Update: Turns out there are 10 candidates I believe are good enough to support alongside a few neutrals. I've narrowed it down to 9 for my personal vote, but I will leave it for the reader to make that decision.

Administrators on Arbcom - I've no objection to non-admins on Arbcom, in fact I'd love to see a non-admin on Arbcom, I think they'd bring an excellent perspective. I judge each individual on their merits, and whether or not they hold an admin flag will not factor into my decision making.

Thoughts on Arbcom

Arbcom plays an essential role on Wikipedia, but there's little it does that could not be done by someone else. I'm hoping that its different roles will be spun off into the community over the coming years and will support any efforts to do so. As I see it, the roles that Arbcom do are as follows

• Arbcom is the final area for dispute resolution. There are sometimes disputes which the community is not able to make a decision on. Arbcom is also not qualified to make a decision, but a decision needs to be made. The community is getting better and better at this, so cases are less frequent.
• Arbcom is the only place which is currently able to actively remove the sysop flag. The committee should be therefore prepared to do so. I would like to see the community take on this role.
• Arbcom is responsible for the functionaries. This includes the Audit Subcommittee, where functionaries' activities can be reviewed. This also includes the appointment of new functionaries. I would like to see this responsibility be moved to the functionaries as a group, perhaps by empowering the Audit Subcommittee.
• Arbcom is the final option for Ban Appeals. It is important that there is a group who can look at bans (or long term blocks) and make decisions on them. The Administrator's noticeboards are frequented by people who are not able to make objective decisions, sometime private information is involved. That said, there is no reason this needs to be an Arbcom role, and I would like to see it spun off to the community.
• Arbcom is responsible for anything else the community is not able to handle. This is generally privacy related information. Once the above are tackled - the "everything else" group should be reconsidered. I'd rather it was split between the WMF and the functionaries.

Arbcom shouldn't exist as it does. Hopefully we'll get to a position where it doesn't over the next few years.

Candidates

Candidate	Gut feeling	Comments	Final Decision	Result %
2 year term
Dougweller (Candidate page)	Leaning support	No particular interaction with Dougweller jumps to mind, but I do have a vaguely positive impression in my head. Need to do digging. On further investigation: Both DGG and Dougweller would make excellent candidates for Arbcom, and I'm struggling to choose between them. So, I'm not going to, I'm going to support both. I actually bumped one of the people I officially supported down to neutral when I voted, I won't say who, as everyone I've supported in this guide is fully deserving of that support.	Support	77.53%
DGG (Candidate page)	Leaning support	No particular interaction with DGG jumps to mind, but I do have a vaguely positive impression in my head. Need to do digging. On further investigation: Both DGG and Dougweller would make excellent candidates for Arbcom, and I'm struggling to choose between them. So, I'm not going to, I'm going to support both. I actually bumped one of the people I officially supported down to neutral when I voted, I won't say who, as everyone I've supported in this guide is fully deserving of that support.	Support	75.58%
Courcelles (Candidate page)	Support	Courcelles and I are diametrically opposite in the way we think. We disagreed far more than we agreed on the committee. That, however, is the way to get the best decisions on Arbcom, because he was open, honest and clear about his arguments. I never doubted his integrity. Arbcom needs people like Courcelles, just as it needs people on the other end of the scale.	Support	73.48%
Salvio giuliano (Candidate page)	Support	There are a number of great Arbitrators on the committee this year, but Salvio is one of the best. He stands up for his beliefs even when the consensus is against him and is able to explain his point of view clearly (even if he does use those ruddy Latin terms!)	Support	71.62%
DeltaQuad (Candidate page)	Support	I've interacted with DQ as a checkuser and never had any issues. I do need to do a bit more digging before making a decision On further investigation: DeltaQuad's answer to my question certainly gives a positive impression, they're thinking in a way I approve of and articulating their answer well. I'd support based on the level of experience he's shown.	Support	68.01%
Yunshui (Candidate page)	Support	Yunshui came to me to review his contributions a few years ago in an "editor review". I found him to be excellent and decided to nominate him for adminship. Since then, we've kept in touch and he's one of the Wikipedians that I would say I trust. I believe he'd make an excellent arbitrator.	Support	66.17%
Euryalus (Candidate page)	No impression, leaning support	I'm unfamiliar with Euryalus, but his answer to my question fills me with confidence. On further investigation: Colour me impressed. This individual has impressed me in every way. He's had enough interaction with content to understand what we're doing here, he's clear in his discussions and he's flown below my radar which means he keeps out of the controversy. The benefits of having someone like him on the committee is immense and I would certainly support him.	Support	62.72%
Guerillero (Candidate page)	Neutral, leaning support	There's something about Guerillero that I've always had issue with and for the life of me, I can't put my finger on it. I think it was because I hesitated at his RfA and that hesitation has stuck. As such, I will hold my hands up and say I've been unfair to him in the past. I met him at Wikimania and found him to be a personable chap. I will dig and make sure I'm not missing anything before supporting On further investigation: Guerillero just missed the last spot last year, he's served well as a functionary. He talks sense. He has the ability to stick by his guns in the face of an angry individual because he believes he was right. He's not my first choice, but I still cannot put my finger on why I'm concerned, on paper he's a very good candidate. I'd recommend supporting him.	Support	62.02%
1 year term
Thryduulf (Candidate page)	Support	I only met Thryduulf for the first time at Wikimania, though I knew both him and his real life name as two different entities, so I was surprised they were one and the same. My gut says that I should support this fellow.	Support	59.58%
Not elected
PhilKnight (Candidate page)	Support	Arbcom needs fresh blood, but it also needs experience. Only 1 of the outgoing arbitrators is re-running this year, so past arbitrators instantly should get a leg up in my book. I've seen Phil's comments in the archives and haven't seen anything that distressed me, so I'd support.	Support	50.38% (Withdrawn)
Ks0stm (Candidate page)	Neutral	I need to look into Ks0stm to make a decision, I've forgotten my decision last year On further investigation: Last year, Ks0stm was not ready, by a long shot. This year, there's definitely been improvement. As both a functionary and a clerk, Ks0stm's work has been perfectly good and he asks questions when he is unsure, which is exactly what I'd like to see in those roles. That said, I just haven't seen anything from him that pushes me into actively supporting the candidate, as I believe there are better candidates out there.	Neutral	49.85%
Kraxler (Candidate page)	Neutral	I need to look into Kraxler to make a decision, I've forgotten my decision last year On further investigation: Just reading through Kraxler's answers to his questions leaves me with the impression of an individual who is going to unwittingly cause difficulties for the himself and the committee, similar to Geni. That said, he has an awful lot of positives, bringing a content creation head to the committee, a non-admin head too. Personally, I won't be supporting - and am leaning towards opposing as I don't think he'll work well in the committee	Neutral, leaning oppose	39.50%
Stanistani (Candidate page)	Leaning support	I need to think here, and the answers to the questions I've asked will make a difference. On further investigation: It's important to remember that Wikipediocracy is not a homogeneous group. There are high points and low points in the group, just as there are on Wikipedia. Stanistani is the highest point I've seen on the site. I've interacted with him a number of times on that site and found him to have the right temperament for Arbcom and to be an all round positive individual. That said, despite his answers to my questions, I remain concerned at the conflict of interests. Regularly on Arbcom you see private information of individuals and it needs to be kept confidential. Similarly, I cannot believe that Zoloft is not exposed to private (or alleged private) information of individuals in his role on Wikipediocracy, which again needs to be kept confidential. I trust him not to act on either, but I'm also not satisfied that he has put sufficient thought into how to resolve the conflict. Furthermore, I fear for how quickly Wikipediocracy could degrade without the excellent work of Zoloft. Overall, I'd trust Stanistani in this role, but I will not personally be supporting him.	Neutral	30.48%
Hahc21 (Candidate page)	Oppose	I get on with Hahc21, I really do. I like the chap and think he's an excellent Wikipedian. However, from discussions I've had with him, I do not believe he is suited to Arbcom. I believe he does not have sufficient experience in resolving disputes, though he is getting a lot better at this. I also believe he is impressionable and that he may be swayed by people he trusts who have an agenda. Hahc21 is an excellent Wikipedian, but his skills lie outside of Arbcom.	Oppose	28.18% (Withdrawn)
Wbm1058 (Candidate page)	No impression	I don't know Wbm1058, but my final decision is an oppose. He's made a soft withdrawal - i.e. he doesn't want to participate in the elections and is happy to be ignored as a candidate. As such, I'd suggest an oppose so that candidates who are participating stand a decent chance Update: Wbm1058 has made "soft re-run", so is happy to be on the docket again. In my opinion, he was the best non-admin candidate, but I haven't had the time to fully vet him. I felt his answers to questions were good, and have therefore moved him to neutral - I wouldn't object to him being an Arb from what I've seen.	Neutral	17.74%
Technical 13 (Candidate page)	Neutral leaning oppose	No particular interaction with Technical 13 jumps to mind, but I do have a vaguely negative impression in my head. Need to do digging. On further investigation: There's just too many red flags. Technical 13 is clearly very good at what he does, as his username indicates, technical work. There is a benefit to a techy role on Arbcom - but IMHO, the current committee is made up of too many techy people. Other red flags includes an indef block a little over 18 months ago, the lack of communication that lead to a an Arbcom case request this year, and a number of other issue that have sprung to my mind. Technical 13 is again someone who has a great skillset, but not one I believe intersects well with Arbcom.	Oppose	16.51%
Isarra (Candidate page)	Oppose	Arbcom is serious business.	Oppose	16.50%
Dusti (Candidate page)	Oppose	I'll have to look into Dusti's more recent history, but to my recollection he didn't take well to his RfA failing and quit. Overall, my impression is that Arbcom would be a poor place for his well being and therefore my gut feeling is to not recommend him. On further investigation: There's a number of red-flags - his candidate statement shows an apparent lack of understanding over the damage any edit warring can do, along with the general feel of his candidacy. Overall, I agree with my gut feeling, that Dusti is a very social individual and can play an extremely important role in bringing new users to the encyclopedia but that his skill set does not match the skill set required of an arbitrator. I worry about the damage these elections will do to him, let alone a stint on Arbcom.	Oppose	15.46%
Geni (Candidate page)	Oppose	I've met Geni quickly more than once, though I doubt he'd remember me. I've no issue with him personally, but in the back of my head I've got him down as someone who's temperament is not suitable for Arbcom. Will dig more before deciding. On further investigation: I worked out where I have a negative impression of Geni from - it's the mailing lists. Having a look at Geni's comments at Wikimedia-l and Wikimediauk-l, I believe Geni's attitude is regularly snarky and often obstructive. I don't believe him to be a receptive individual and I believe if he were in the role of arbitrator he may well make comments which are divisive amongst the community. I cannot support an individual who is going to cause issues like that.	Oppose	14.59%
Calidum (Candidate page)	No impression	I know Calidum primarily from his previous voter guides - will have to look into his history. On further investigation: I'm afraid that Calidum is not suitable to be an arbitrator. His primary goal appears to be reform and I agree that reform is needed - but I'd rather see that reform coming from someone who is able to do the day job. He is self admittedly "brash" and does not appear to have experience in the areas that would be needed. That said, I would like to acknowledge that he has grown significantly since running in 2011 and can certainly be seen as an asset to the encyclopedia at this time.	Oppose	10.75%