User:Elonka/ACE2018
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
This year's results have been posted. 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
[edit]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 2018, an RfC took place concerning the format of the 2018 elections, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018.
Candidates self-nominated from November 4 to November 13, and the voting period will run from November 19 to December 2. For details on voting eligibility, see the 2018 election page.
For this 2018/2019 cycle, the size of the Committee is being reduced from 15 to 13. There will be 6 vacancies to be filled, for either one- or two-year terms.
My standards
[edit]This page that you are reading, contains my (Elonka's) thoughts on the current 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.
Past votes
[edit]To see my thoughts on previous elections, check the history of:
Candidates
[edit]- Voting ran from November 19 until December 2. This year's results were posted on December 14.
- AGK (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
Support. Previous Arbitrator
- Courcelles (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Previous Arbitrator
- DGG (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Current Arbitrator. I just wish DGG had more article-writing cred.
- Drmies (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Current Arbitrator, strong candidate, understands what we're here for, which is writing articles!
- Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
Oppose. Previous Arbitrator. Has had a very low activity level, then he declared his candidacy, but within a week was blocked for edit-warring on his own candidate questions page, then within a matter of minutes unblocked himself, then he was blocked again by a different admin, then he immediately unblocked himself again, then a different admin blocked him indefinitely, then a bureaucrat de-sysopped him,[1][2] As of November 16, he has been reinstated as a (non-admin) editor, and an arbitration case has been opened regarding the situation. Just too much shenanigans right now, sorry.
- GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Previous Arbitrator
- Isarra (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Oppose. Not an administrator
- Joe Roe (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Weak oppose. I checked the last few years of his contribs but could not find any record of Joe ever participating in an ArbCom case, even if just to offer an uninvolved statement, so I'm concerned that he knows what he's getting into. On the plus side, there are several created articles listed on his userpage, which is good. However, only one of those articles, Margaret Ursula Jones has risen as high as Good Article status. I have to admit I was surprised at the relatively short length of the article. and its history shows fewer than 50 edits total, which again surprised me. I am not saying that anything inappropriate happened, it just caused a raised eybrow on my part. I like that Joe has added many photos to Commons, and even better, many maps, since I know that adds a level of difficulty. But then on the minus side, his main account User:Joe Roe has been gone from the project since October. His candidate statement was placed by his alternate account, User:Joe Roe (mobile).[3] on November 13, but then questions were only answered until November 17, with a note that Joe would be gone until November 27. So the eyebrow goes up again. Would this user even have enough time to be a committed arbitrator? The comments that I've seen from him have been reasonable and thoughtful, but the time-available issue and the lack of participation at ArbCom is just too much of a concern for me. I cannot comfortably support.
- Kelapstick (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Neutral, primarily due to concerns about time-available. He is a previous Arbitrator, but he just hasn't been around that much. He had good participation from April - June 2018, then only a few edits on two days in July, 7 edits in August, and similarly only a handful of edits in September and October. In November, contribs went up, but really only to participate in this election, with very minor edits in article-space. Looking at his editing history in 2017, the erratic contribution level is similar, it looks to be fewer than 100 edits for the entire year. If he had the time available to be an arbitrator, this could work, but his editing pattern just doesn't fill me with confidence.
- Lourdes (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Weak Support. Is a new administrator, but not particularly active. Does have good article-writing experience though. Has definitely ruffled some feathers here and there, but also appears capable of learning from mistakes. It's borderline, but I am willing to support her candidacy.
- Mkdw (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Current Arbitrator, though I have some concerns about activity level.
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Oppose. Not an administrator, and has no strong article-writing experience. He has run for admin before, in 2006 and in 2017, but without success. If he cannot muster sufficient community support to be an administrator, he definitely should not be an arbitrator. ArbCom cases are already controversial enough without additional drama.
- SilkTork (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Previous Arbitrator. Good article-writing experience, strong candidate.
Withdrawn/Disqualified
[edit]Doug_Weller (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questionsPrevious Arbitrator
Patient_Zero (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questionsOppose. Not an administrator
| These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |