User:Elonka/ACE2017

The votes have been tabulated, and the results are here. Congratulations and sympathies to the new arbs!

Disclaimer: This page expresses my personal opinions and observations only. I encourage all voters to do their own research on the candidates.

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 or three), with a new batch elected each year.

In September 2017, an RfC took place concerning the format of the 2017 elections, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017.

Candidates self-nominated from November 12 to November 21, and the voting period ran from November 27 to December 10. Results have been posted here. For details on voting eligibility, see the 2017 election page.

For this 2017/2018 cycle, seven of the 15 arbitrators will remain on the committee from previous elections, with openings for eight new arbitrators to be elected to 2-year terms.

My standards

This page that you are reading, contains my (Elonka's) thoughts on the 2017 crop of ArbCom candidates. My general standards for a candidate are:

• Admin access
• Integrity
• Experience with article-writing
• Time-available for the project
• Hands-on knowledge of the dispute resolution processes.

I am also a strong supporter of civility, as I believe that rude behavior on the project can drive away other editors, and I would hope that ArbCom would help support that view; however, I also understand that not everyone has the same feelings about civility, so I am willing to support arbitrator candidates for other reasons than just that one.

To see my thoughts on previous elections, check the history of:

• User:Elonka/ACE2008
• User:Elonka/ACE2009
• User:Elonka/ACE2010
• User:Elonka/ACE2011
• User:Elonka/ACE2012
• User:Elonka/ACE2013
• User:Elonka/ACE2014
• User:Elonka/ACE2015
• User:Elonka/ACE2016

Candidates

Candidates self-nominated from November 12–21, 2017. Voting took place from November 27 – December 10. The results can be seen here.

1. Alex Shih (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Oppose. His usage report,[1] shows a strong tendency to spike, meaning to have thousands of edits some years, but then a streak of several years with practically no editing. From August 2013 until July 2017 he had fewer than 50 edits per year, but then starting in July 2017 he became extremely active here, with thousands of edits. So right now he is on a very high spike, but would he be able to maintain that for the multi-year term of an arbitrator? Or would we elect him and then he'd burnout and disappear? I am also not seeing much in the way of article work. He has done some work with DYK, especially in the project areas of China and Japan, but there are no GA or FA articles that I can see. With this kind of editor fingerprint, I'm sorry, but I just cannot support. If he would like to run again in the future, I would encourage him to bring an article or two up to GA/FA, and to show a sustained pattern of editing in the English Wikipedia, not just for a few months before the ArbCom election.

2. BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Support. Administrator and also has CheckUser access, so has a solid understanding of some of the aspects of dispute resolution. Activity levels are good, and he has solid article contributions. An all-around good candidate.

3. Callanecc (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Support. Current arbitrator. Trusted member of the community, with Checkuser and Oversight access.

4. KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Support. Checkuser and oversight access, so is a trusted member of the community. I like her personality. She clearly has a ton of experience with dispute resolution in terms of her involvement with tracking down sockpuppets. However, her article-writing experience appears fairly weak. Admin work is great, but I also like to see creation of at least one Good or Featured article, since understanding that process is such an important part of the project. Her experience with arbitration also appears fairly weak. She has shown up to comment on a couple cases where she was dragged in, but within the last couple years, I could not find any indication of uninvolved statements. Then again, those reasons are not enough to oppose such an otherwise strong candidate, so I shall support.

5. Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Likely support. Long-time Wikipedian, understands how things work. Trusted member of the community, with CheckUser and Oversight access, and has been an arbitrator before. However, since 2009, has only managed fewer than 1000 edits (sometimes fewer than 500 edits) per year. Article contributions are solid, with both GAs and FAs under his belt. If he has time for the job, I believe he'd be a good choice.

6. Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Strong support. Current arbitrator. Active on the project, solid experience with article-writing. A good candidate.

7. Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Weak support. Created a Wikipedia account way back in 2003, became an administrator back in the "easy days" of 2004, but otherwise hasn't been particularly active.[2] Then in January 2017 suddenly became extremely active, and now is running for arbitrator. Lots of experience with AfDs. But does not have much experience with article-writing, her most active pages are lists. I see no GAs or FAs. Little if any participation in arbitration cases. So aside from AfD work, I'm not seeing much to support her candidacy. Then again, I'm not seeing strong reasons to oppose. So I'm on the fence. I'll read more of her answers and see if that helps me make up my mind.

8. RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Support. Long-time Wikipedian, had an unsuccessful run for Administrator back in 2007, primarily for lack of experience. Then an unsuccessful run for Arbitrator in 2015. I opposed then for a similar reason, lack of experience. I feel strongly that someone should be an administrator first, before trying to become an arbitrator. Since then he changed names from Wildthing61476 to RickInBaltimore, and had an extremely successful run for administrator in November 2016. And now we're back here to ArbCom, giving it another shot. Bonus points for persistence! His activity levels are good. My main concern is that I am still not seeing much in the way of article work. But that's not a strong reason to oppose, so I will support.

9. Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Oppose. Not an admin.

10. SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

    • Oppose. Not an admin. I have respect for SMcCandlish. He is a longterm member of the community, and obviously highly intelligent. However, I stand by my belief that someone must have been able to at least achieve administrator status before I am willing to consider them as Arbitrator. He ran for admin twice before, in 2007 and again in 2010, but there were strong concerns from the community. I can sympathize with all the politics involved, but I would like to see him run for admin again, and show community support, before running for arbitrator. The Arb cases are already controversial enough, without having an arbitrator who is themselves controversial before even joining the committee.

11. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

    • Oppose. Not currently an admin. Became one, with strong support, back in 2007. Then a bureaucrat in 2008. He did a lot of great work, but he no longer has the bits. Things evidently started going south in mid-2015, and during an Arbitration case about his behavior, he gave up his bits per his own request in October 2016. I read his candidate statement, but his reasons for running don't sit well with me. I am also not thrilled with his adding "Rogue Wikipedians" to his user page last month,[3] nor his recent block log.[4] I did review the Arbitration case involving him from late 2016, and the subsequent September 2017 motion, "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. So I must oppose, because I am worried that as an arbitrator, at this time his lack of interpersonal skills[5] might do more harm to the project than good.. I do, however, encourage him to continue doing the wonderful article work that he has been doing for years. Overall, his efforts are a definite benefit to the project.

12. Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

    • Cautious support. When I first saw the name, my reaction was, "Oh, previous arbitrator, bureaucrat access, checkuser, level-headed, easy support." But then I saw that he no longer has the bits, as he gave them up voluntarily when he went away for awhile. Now he's back, and is interested in being on ArbCom again. He's trying to "extend the debate" about non-admins. To which I say, "If you were an admin, and gave up the bit voluntarily, and not in contentious circumstances, I still regard you as a trusted user." Having said that, one of my concerns would of course be time-available, it's always unfortunate to choose a good arbitrator, and then three months into their term, they resign again. So I support, but cautiously. If he has time for us, he'll be a great arbitrator, and I'm glad to have him back.

Withdrawn/Disqualified

1. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) • statement • questions

   • Oppose. Not an admin.

2. SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions

   • Undecided. Sarek definitely has a checkered past on the project. He was an administrator, but came close to being de-sysopped in 2013, and voluntarily stepped down. Then ran for admin again in early 2014, but unsuccessfully. Then made another run in early 2015 and achieved consensus, though there were still some strong concerns. Since mid-2016 he has only had a few (as in <10) edits/month, until October of this year when he became very active again. This is a concerning fingerprint as it raises the concern that someone may just show up to look good for the ArbCom elections, but then if they're elected, they may burnout a few months later. For example, after his successful RfA in 2015, within a few months he basically disappeared off the project again. [6] All in all, not a horrible candidate, but not one that I am very comfortable supporting.

---