User:Heimstern/ACE2008

I'll be using this page to explain my rationales for my votes in the upcoming elections for the ArbCom.

Where I'm coming from

To start out, some general thoughts about where I stand and what biases are coming into my votes. I am highly disappointed in the ArbCom's recent performance. Several factors come into this, among which the greatest are:

• The absurd ruling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC, which was the most classic case of shooting the messenger one could imagine. The committee sanctioned Giano while leaving those users actually responsible for the disturbance by calling others more-than-usually rude names unscathed. Hooray for equity!

• The decision<?> in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. As far as I can see, the committee has never made it clear how this "decision", which it apparently never made (this being the clearest bit of info the community has ever been given, to my knowledge) ended up on-wiki. This makes it difficult to be sure to what extent the responsibility falls on FT2, and to what extent upon the committee as a whole, though perhaps it makes little difference. Either way, it was an obviously unacceptable action to post sanctions against any user who had not committed much more serious misbehaviours (for example, sockpuppetry or privacy violations) than anything OrangeMarlin had done without allowing the user to defend himself.

• Oh, guess what? Yup, of course: The extreme delay in the completion of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. Arbs, you were elected to the committee for a reason: to arbitrate disputes. Other than those recused, plus the through-most-of-the-proceedings-absent Newyorkbrad, I'm afraid you rather failed to do that. The best we could get was a motion to dismiss the case until NYB returned and got the job done (with a few teeth added to the decision by Thebainer). I understand that this was a difficult case, but the complete lack of attention, not only to the case itself, but to the concerns the community was posting, was unacceptable.

I could go on to other concerns, but these are the primary ones. Suffice to say that this alone convinces me that it's time to really be looking for turnover in the committee. This means that I will certainly be disinclined to re-elect any sitting arbitrators (there is a small list in my mind of arbs who would overcome my disinclination, but as only one of them is of the tranche whose terms are expiring, the list may prove irrelevant this go-round).

My thoughts when voting

I suppose what I'm looking for most is more folks who are like the arbs I most trust. Newyorkbrad, primarily, who has a strong tendency to see the problems between people and cut to the heart of the issue and think of some plan to solve it. Also Kirill, who's done perhaps more than any other arb to keep the committee moving (even if I disagree with his ideas sometimes). Flo, too, who's done a great deal to communicate with the community about her reasoning (to an extent I rather wish the rest of the committee would emulate). And lastly, I'd definitely like to see more YellowMonkeys on the committee: folks who really pay attention to article writers and their needs.

Unfortunately, it can be hard to evaluate new cadidates. Not all of my expectations were met in those I voted for last round, for example. I'm having to make educated guesses on how candidates will be likely to discharge arbitratorial duties.

Some notes about my voting method: I support every candidate I think will do a good job. Some people have picked out a list of seven and are supporting those and opposing all others to increase the odds of those seven winning. I dun like this method (it's overly confrontational, for one thing). I know some of the candidates I support won't win, and if they don't, I might as well also be throwing my support behind other candidates I also think will do well.

If I don't think a candidate will do well, I won't necessarily oppose them: if their candidacy shows no sign of success, I'll just remain neutral (I see no need to pile-on). On the other hand, given that Jimbo has stated that he officially reserves the right to appoint anyone with at least 50% support, anyone I disapprove of who gets over 50% will probably get an oppose vote from me. I assure you it's nothing personal.

So, on to the list of candidates

• AnthonyQBachler: I don't really see that the candidate has the experience needed for ArbCom, nor does his candidate statement really convince me he even understands what the job is.

• BillMasen: Withdrew before I could vote. Probably wouldn't have anyway, since it clearly was going nowhere fast.

• Carcharoth: He's unconventional in many ways, but still, I find the guy trustworthy.

• Casliber: Seems to be doing really well in the election, but I have to say I find some of his answers to the questions unconvincing. The other problem is that I really didn't know the guy prior to his candidacy. Good article work is a plus, though. Neutral (i.e., abstaining) at this point (thus far, it doesn't need my vote, anyway!)

• Charles Matthews: Charles's own statement pretty much guarantees he will not get my vote, as a continuity candidate is not something in which I have the slightest interest this time.

• Cool Hand Luke: I don't know Cool Hand Luke, as I was completely out of the Mantmoreland loop. I'm going to have to do some research on this one. I can't say I'm convinced by the opposers on this one, most of whom seem to be after him for participating in WR. Not sure yet. Convinced to support in the end.

• Coren: Nice guy, but I'm just not convinced he's ready to handle disputes of ArbCom level. Does fine as a clerk; I'm in support of him staying that way.

• Dream Focus: This user doesn't seem to really understand what ArbCom is about, as his statement is all about content issues, which ArbCom does not handle.

• Fish and karate: I admire much of Fish and karate's work, and it seems to me he's made some improvement lately in his working with those who disagree with him. Still, I'm not quite convinced. Planning to remain neutral since the nomination appears to be going nowhere.

• George The Dragon: While I do have doubts about the Jimbo mandate, I can't really view a candidacy based solely on challenging said mandate as convincing.

• Gwen Gale: Withdrew before I could vote, so I think I'll refrain from commenting.

• Hemlock Martinis: Don't really know the guy too well, and as his candidacy seems not to be going anywhere, neutral.

• Jayvdb: John seems to have very solid judgment, so I'm quick to support him. Some concerns have arisen that have made me concerned about him. First, his decision to oppose so many of the other candidates wasn't very good judgment. I'm willing to assume good faith that he wasn't just trying to bolster his own candidacy, but still, arbs should be above suspicion of such actions. Furthermore, he's never gotten around to answering my questions, or to many of the other questions asked of the candidates. Debating whether to switch to oppose. At this point, I'm switching to oppose pending replies not only to my own questions, but also to at least one question from another user. In the end, he has never gotten to my questions. I'm rather disappointed in thus. I understand that he's had an unfortunate rash of block voting against him; nonetheless, the lack of answers leaves me unconvinced. Permanent switch to oppose. Finally got to it. Striking oppose and going to neutral.

• Jdforrester: Number A, IRC has become a festering sore on the face of Wikipedia under his leadership. Letter 2, he hasn't exactly been too communicative during his existing tenure on the ArbCom. Not to mention that I'm not really big reelecting much of anyone, as I've already said.

• Jehochman: Jehochman has been diligent in trying to help Wikipedia, I believe, but I do have to agree with some of his critics that he's sometimes stirred up drama.

• Justice America: Not much going for this candidacy, from what I can see.

• Kmweber: Well, for one thing, it's a self-nom... In all seriousness, Kurt's approach to the committee is way to extreme even for me, critical of the committee as I am. Trying to shut the committee down is not the answer to our problems. Not to mention his recent trolling and assumptions of bad faith toward people who self-nom at RfA.

• Lankiveil: Don't really know the guy, and he doesn't seem especially experienced.

• lifebaka: Like Lankiveil, unknown and possibly inexperienced.

• Privatemusings: Others have already pointed out all the problems with him being an arbitrator, so I won't heap on the criticism. Also not going to oppose; seems unnecessary at this point.

• Risker: Not at all sure she's electable, but still, I trust her judgment, and think she'd be an asset to the committee.

• Rlevse: I feel Rlevse would make, at worst, an OK arbitrator, so I will support him, though with a bit less enthusiasm some others.

• RMHED: Once again, no, not looking for the "shit [to] hit the fan"; just want some basic fixes. Exceedingly combative.

• Roger Davies: I don't know this candidate, and thus I have to rely heavily on the questions. And I have to say that I find his answers to several of the questions unconvincing, notably my own. They're very vague and general, leaving me with no particularly clear insight about how he'd handle the issues I mention, which I think are important ones for committee members. Answers have improved markedly. I still wish he'd answered them well the first time (it seems to me that getting it wrong the first time is not good for arbs. Of course it'll happen, but it's highly undesirable.) I'm still looking over his responses to others, which I find a bit overly defensive, to decide whether to strike my oppose or not. I've decided to strike. I don't feel the reasons to oppose are there anymore. I also hope he has learnt a great deal from this election cycle. He's showing signs of being teachable, which is something we really need, so perhaps that's a sign that his election (which seems all but inevitable at this point) will be good for us.

• Sam Korn: I've generally found Sam's judgment solid, which would be enough to overcome my tendency against voting for former arbs (and he was awhile ago, after all). Unfortunately, his activity just isn't high enough that I can support. Actually, looking again, it wasn't that bad, after all, but he's withdrawn, so it doesn't really matter.

• Shell Kinney: Don't really know her, and her candidacy doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I'll probably just stay neutral.

• SirFozzie: I think some of the criticism directed at SirFozzie is too extreme. Still, I have to agree that, as good as his intentions no doubt are, and as attractive as his platform is, I just don't see in him the reformer that I want on the committee. Also, because his candidacy is reasonably competitive, I feel impelled to oppose, where otherwise I might just remain neutral.

• The Fat Man Who Never Came Back: Don't really know the guy. Probably neutral.

• TROJAN PONY!: Cute nom, but not really the sort I can take seriously.

• Vassyana: I get a generally good impression of him. I still would like to research him before deciding, though.

• White Cat: Moral support. I think some of the criticism of him goes too far, and I agree with Sjakalle's support for his weathering the constant presence of an abusive sock (while other users abetted said sock, albeit not knowing he was a banned user). I don't think he'd make a good arb, but at this point, my support isn't going to make him one.

• WilyD: Can't say that his platform, which seems to be rather, well, cudgel-based, is really the reform I'm looking for.

• Wizardman: This is a hard one for me. I like Wizardman, and he's got a decent resume, but something about him that's very hard to place strikes me as just not quite ready for ArbCom yet. Some of it may be his comments on Kww's RfA, an oppose I agreed with, but the way he put it wasn't really as restrained as I would hope for in an arb.

• WJBscribe: Will's judgment is some of the most sound I've seen on Wikipedia. In many ways, he reminds me of Newyorkbrad.

Finally, I wish to state my official support for two withdrawn candidates: Bishzilla and Catherine de Burgh. May they long live, even if they do not join the ArbCom.

Comments on the results

Well, it's over, and Jimbo's decision to expand the committee surprises substantially me a bit. (I did have the possibility in mind, which is part of why I shunned any tactical voting; I just didn't think it was likely to happen.) I applaud Jimbo's reading of the results as the community's desire for change; this seems to me to be a spot-on reading and helps show me that Jimbo is not as out of touch with the community as I've feared he might be. Jimbo has decided that part of the way to do this is to appoint more committee members, essentially increasing the percentage of "fresh blood". I have two concerns about this decision. First, it adds more members to the committee who have a lesser degree of community support. This is meant as no offense to Coren, Wizardman and Carcharoth, but a mere observation of how the results came out. Second, I worry that more members will bog the committee down with a need for higher majorities and the like.

It's my hope that the next few months and yea, the next year will be enough to crush my doubts. Right now, the ArbCom really needs a good new year for its own sake, the community's and the encyclopedia.

Benediction

Happy New Year, Wikipedia. Happy New Year, Arbitration Committee, both new and old. More importantly, Happ New Year, article writers. We need you the most. And I want to take a little time to especially wish a Happy New Year to Giano, wherever he may be off on wikibreak. I am hoping that, whenever you come back, that this new ArbCom will have thought of better solutions that don't involve hammering you over the head with poorly crafted remedies and, more importantly, that you'll be refreshed and ready to write more great articles. To the rest of you who make Wikipedia work: Happy New Year; let's see if there's any way we can make 2009 a much better year for Wikipedia than 2008 was.