User:Boing! said Zebedee/ACE2013

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think it's fair to say this past year has been a controversial one for ArbCom (though I do think we have some pretty good people on it). I think we've seen some erratic decision-making and quite a bit of disagreement among Arbs. Now, disagreement in itself is not a bad thing, but I see some candidates running this time who I believe would, if elected, create the wrong kind of disagreements - and that's what's stirred me from my slumbers to offer an election guide this year.

I'm firmly of the belief that ArbCom should be there primarily to reflect and enforce the will of the Community (and we'll have plenty of healthy disagreement on that - it's by no means always easy to determine). But what we should definitely not have is individual Arbs trying to enforce their own views of how the project should be run, and it saddens me to see some candidates running on exactly that kind of platform.

Essentially, then, I'll be supporting candidates who I think will act in a neutral and fair manner and will listen to and be able to empathise with all parties in a dispute. And I will be opposing those who I think are bringing their own agendas to the table and trying to impose their own opinions.

(And then when it's all over I can retreat once again to the relative obscurity of occasional gnome-work.)

Candidate Comments Opinion
28bytes I couldn't have been happier to see 28bytes enter the fray - 28bytes is one of the best, fairest, smartest and most trustworthy editors/admins/crats we have, and I offer very strong support. Symbol confirmed.svg Support
AGK I think AGK and I would probably disagree on quite a few issues, but that doesn't bother me because AGK is the kind of person who will (and does) act on what he believes is the Community's will. I expect empathy and fairness from him - and I'm also swayed a lot by NuclearWarfare's ringing endorsement. AGK has my support. Symbol confirmed.svg Support
Arthur Rubin I think the statement "I think some of the members of ArbCom have lost sight of the concept that the purpose of Wikipedia is to add and maintain content" is wide of the mark and reflects a bit of personal animosity on the part of someone under a topic ban (which I think is justified). I don't think that's a good attitude to be taking into a new ArbCom, and I have to oppose. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
Beeblebrox Beeblebrox is perhaps a bit brusque at times and doesn't suffer fools well, and some may see him as authoritarian. But in my view he's fair and his judgment is usually sound, and I think he'd take an even-handed approach to ArbCom (while perhaps occasionally offering them a needed kick up the arse). I supported Beeblebrox last time and I do so again. Symbol confirmed.svg Support
Bwilkins I have a lot of time for Bwilkins - I've worked in similar admin areas in the past and I've seen him doing good work (and I think Jimbo was well out of order in that resignation demand). But I think he can be too hot-headed and a bit heavy-handed at times, and I don't see the kind of painstaking attention to other people's feelings that I think is needed in an Arb. I must, therefore, oppose. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
David Gerard This is clearly a "personal axe to grind" candidate whose campaign is solely based on telling us what a rotten lot the current Arbs are and making unsupported attacks on them. Currently under ArbCom restrictions, recently admonished as an admin, and has had his CU and OS rights removed. Not a chance. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
Floquenbeam "But if you can't quite get to nine, then a vote for me is a vote for a non-insane, reasonably intelligent, non-dogmatic, middle of the road person with no agenda, no point to make, and who is willing to help out. You could do worse." I think we couldn't do much better, in fact -- those are exactly the qualities I want to see in an Arb, and Floquenbeam does indeed possess them. Easy support. Symbol confirmed.svg Support
Gamaliel Lots of good content work and looks like a pretty good Wikipedian. But I can't help thinking that "I think as a whole that Wikipedia does well in the areas of BLP and NPOV" seems perhaps a bit naive, and I'm concerned there's a bit too much focus on the "civility" thing. Not enough to oppose, mind, so I'm staying neutral. Symbol partially neutral vote.svg Neutral
Georgewilliamherbert Too inactive for too long, I think. And while some of the concerns voiced in his statement are valid, I think some are a bit over-dramatic. Maybe next time with more recent activity, but not this time. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
GorillaWarfare OS, OTRS, does lot of admin gruntwork, talks nice to people, seems calm and level-headed, and sounds like a clever techie person. Not a lot of dispute-resolution experience, but she empathizes well with people and I think she'll be good at it. Yes please. Symbol confirmed.svg Support
Guerillero Get through uni, get those theses done, bang heads with some real-world people in a post-uni environment, and I could probably support a run when the time and commitment are available. But not yet. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
Isarra I must confess I wondered if there was a bit of trolling going on here when I saw all that "pie" stuff, but I'm happy it's just meant as a bit of humour even if grumpy old Boing does find it a bit tedious. Putting that aside, I'm not really seeing the experience that I think is necessary in an Arb, and so I must oppose. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
Kraxler Excellent content creator and not an admin, which is good. Smart and level-headed, down to earth, speaks his mind, opposes excess bureaucracy - and I'm impressed the way he tells people when they're asking stupid questions :-) There's a lot to like here. Symbol confirmed.svg Support
Ks0stm I think an Arb needs the maturity and people-experience that comes from a few years out in the real world after uni. Statement and answers came across as a bit formulaic. Eg, "resolving situations brought before the committee as efficiently, evenhandedly, and successfully as possible" - what, someone might want to do it inefficiently, with bias, and unsuccessfully? Sorry, still not yet. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
Kww Last year I saw Kww as not having the ability to empathize with others, and what I've seen since then only strengthens that opinion - and I've also seen some poor failures to gauge the feeling of the Community. Well-intentioned regarding the project, certainly, but one of the authoritarians who would try to impose their own will rather than seeking to enforce that of the Community (and I think the comment "I don't tolerate misbehaviour, no matter how glorious of a copywriter someone may be" perhaps says it best, and makes his personal bias clear - for KWW it's obedience first, with building an encyclopedia taking a back seat). Sorry, then, but this has to be a strong oppose. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
LFaraone I have to confess I'd never heard of LFaraone before this election, but I see a drama-free admin/CU/OS/OTRS and I like that. I also like the candidate statement and answers to questions so far, and the "do no BLP harm stance" - but the "laxly enforced civility" thing seems like a one-dimensional interpretation of a very complex issue. But ovrall, yes, I'm supporting. Symbol confirmed.svg Support
NativeForeigner I'm seeing a lot of good stuff here - content work, project coordination, OTRS, SPI clerking, CU. I like the moderate/neutral voice I'm hearing and I support the call for more ArbCom transparency and for the restructuring of BASC. Good insight shown in answers to questions, and an admirable anti-authoritarian stance. Will be getting my support. Symbol confirmed.svg Support
RegentsPark I supported RegentsPark last year, but I'm disturbed by the tendency to act unilaterally while consensus is still developing (see unblock of Darkness Shines). We need Arbs to be laid-back, patient, and put listening ahead of quick action - and I'm not seeing that. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
Richwales I would find it very hard to support someone running on the "Civility" ticket, when the Community is nowhere nearer to defining what it is than when I first got here all those years ago. I know Rich makes the point of opposing "so-called "civil" POV pushing", but I'm not convinced he knows how to fully identify the kind of insidious incivility that doesn't use bad words but which causes great damage - far more good people have been driven away by that than by the occasional "fuck". I don't want to risk having the "rude words police" on ArbCom, so I must oppose. Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
Roger Davies Five years as an Arb already and hasn't wrecked the place. I agree that ArbCom should be trying to pass responsibility for as much as possible to the Community and that WMF should do more. We're likely to be having a fair few brand-new Arbs this year and next, and we need the experienced guidance. Another two years should be fine. Symbol confirmed.svg Support
Seraphimblade I've seen Seraphimblade around the place and have a lot of respect, but I just feel there's something missing with the candidate's statement and answers to questions. They're an opportunity to be individual and say something personal, but they kind of read as if they were formulated by an RfC - though I'm probably not explaining myself well. Symbol partially neutral vote.svg Neutral
The Devil's Advocate Blocks, bans, sanctions, confrontational attitude, and can be quite obnoxious at times - no thanks. (Besides, if I support, Bishzilla might eat me.) Symbol unrelated.svg Oppose
Risker I just want to record that I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to Support Risker this time - she's one of the hardest working Arbs we've had, and she's always tried to be fair and put the project's best interests first. N/A