User:Kurtis/ArbCom Elections 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Candidate Comments Vote
AGK AGK is one of Wikipedia's most level-headed administrators. Having read some of his musings throughout Wikipedia, I have always gotten the sense that AGK makes a point of thoroughly familiarizing himself with the facts before formulating an opinion. Better yet, AGK says what he thinks, not necessarily what everyone else is thinking. He will most definitely not be a "yes man" who mindlessly signs his name under the most popular option. I strongly support AGK for ArbCom. Strong Support
Panyd A cursory view of her talk page and ArbCom candidacy gives me the impression that she is very open and friendly. She's obviously enthusiastic about helping others where it is needed. Neither her relationship with the Cavalry nor her health condition are concerning to me. I'm going to go ahead and support her candidacy. Support
Worm That Turned In his candidacy, Worm That Turned has correctly identified his strongest skillset as being his ability to work with others. He may be a bit inexperienced as an administrator, but certainly not as a member of the Wikipedia community. Worm That Turned is a very thoughtful commentator with a real gift in the art of tact. His introspective personality and friendly demeanor are probably the biggest reasons why I've decided to support his bid for ArbCom. Support
Geni I know I'm probably getting a bit nitpicky here, but I'm having a really hard time making out some of the answers he gave on his candidacy's "Questions" page. In my opinion, his grammar and limited use of punctuation leave a lot to be desired. This is relevant because I consider communication skills to be the most important trait that an arbitrator needs to possess. I want to elect people with the ability to clearly explain their positions, and some of Geni's sentences have me really confused. Besides that, though, there's also the issue of his desysop. I know it was back in 2007 and that he has since regained the tools (I supported his RfA back in January 2009, and I have never had any concerns about him since then), it's just that I have a hard time reconciling ArbCom membership with having once been desysopped. Geni is a great administrator, but I don't think he's the right choice for ArbCom. Oppose
SilkTork This would have been a very difficult choice had there not been a "No Vote" option. SilkTork seems like an honest, upstanding guy — but for some reason, I feel disinclined to support him for ArbCom. I guess you could call it a gut feeling. I think maybe one of the things that gave me pause was the first half of his candidate statement. In his own words: "What hurts the smooth progress of Wikipedia is any user or group of users who feel they are above or beyond the community, and who wish to assert their personal point of view... ArbCom is here to ensure that the community's views are upheld." I'm probably just overemphasizing a trivial detail, but I find it ironic that he'd say that when the ArbCom itself has at times acted as "a group of users who feel they are above or beyond the community." It seems as if he is overlooking ArbCom's most prominent shortcoming: a lack of synchronicity between the committee and the community. Someone who fails to recognize this inherent flaw may not be able to help bridge ArbCom's disparities with Wikipedia, as they are under the impression that none exist. I may be misinterpreting SilkTork's sentiments entirely (in fact, I probably am), but it is something that caught my eye. No Vote
Eluchil404 Eluchil404's opening statement has me convinced that he'd be a reasonably active and thorough arbitrator. His answers to the questions reveal a depth of understanding that is almost unheard of on Wikipedia. It also demonstrates that Eluchil404 has the analytical skills needed to be an asset as an arbitrator, despite concerns voiced by others relating to a lack of activity in recent times. Support
NWA.Rep NWA.Rep's opening statement alone is enough for me to oppose him. The main page of someone's candidacy should focus on highlighting their skillsets and convincing the community that they're suited for ArbCom. Context is important, but we don't want to see someone opening their candidacy with a negatively written spiel about their past conflicts. To be completely honest, NWA.Rep has shown a degree of arrogance that I find incompatible with ArbCom membership. Strong Oppose
Courcelles Courcelles is an outstanding administrator. Everywhere I see his name pop up, he always comes across as patient, impartial, and friendly. I think he'd make a fantastic arbitrator. Strong Support
Hersfold Hersfold is a question mark for me. One the one hand, I consider him one of Wikipedia's standout administrators. I have always had positive interactions with Hersfold, and he has an ability to communicate from an experienced perspective without any condescention. I want to elect arbitrators who don't consider themselves to be above the law, people who will retain the mindset of an ordinary editor rather than a disconnected orator who rules from atop his ivory tower. But on the other hand, I have one major reservation with supporting Hersfold's re-election bid. I strongly supported his las ArbCom candidacy in 2009, even going so far as to tell him personally that I consider him among the best candidates for the committee. I guess it goes without saying that I felt really dismayed when he resigned from ArbCom only a few months after being elected. This time I'm more reluctant to give him a support vote, not because I no longer think he's qualified to be an arbitrator (I consider him a paradigm for what an arbitrator ought to be), but because I just don't feel assured that the same thing wouldn't happen again were he to be elected. No Vote
Jclemens Last year I opposed Jclemens for ArbCom, for reasons I can't quite articulate. I guess it was sort of a gut feeling based on observations buried deep in my subconscious. In any case, I haven't kept a particularly close eye on his work as an arbitrator over the past year, but he seemed very sensible from what I've seen. I also really like his platform; we need arbitrators who are against the status quo. Still, the "gut feeling" lingers. I can't bring myself to support, but I'm definitely not going to oppose his candidacy. Now I know where my gut feeling comes from. Wizardman lists instances on his voting guide where Jclemens advocated excessively harsh sanctions for relatively minor offenses. But what really got me was the way he belittled the opinions of his fellow arbitrators when they disagreed with him. This is a quote from a current proposal to topic ban Orangemarlin on the ongoing abortion case — "First choice... of presented options. I have decided not to put forward an outright ban because it is apparent there is no support for it, which is a shame." A shame? It's a shame that nobody supports telling someone that they're no longer welcome on Wikipedia? In my view, it's a shame when ArbCom does have to ban someone from our site. Yes, it's necessary sometimes when all other venues have been exhausted, but a site ban is not something to wish upon anyone. Something in his intonation gave the impression that he thinks everyone else is wrong, rather than just having a difference in perspective. Jclemens is entitled to his opinions, but he does not have the right to act as if those who disagree with him are inherently wrong. I'm now opposed to his candidacy. No Vote


Kirill Lokshin Kirill Lokshin is one of the best drafters ArbCom has ever seen, and he's performed outstandingly well throughout his past five years on the committee. The only reason I'm inclined to oppose his candidacy is because I'm reluctant to support granting anybody more than five years on the committee. I really appreciate Kirill's contributions to the committee over the years, but I think it's time for a change. Oppose
Coren Throughout the past three years, Coren has generally done an excellent job as one of ArbCom's foremost orators. He is one of the most impartial people I have ever seen, on Wikipedia or otherwise. However, over the past year I've noticed his effectiveness decline significantly, which I think is a result of such prolonged involvement in Wikipedia's most toxic environments. I don't think this will improve if he were re-elected for yet another term, so unfortunately I have to oppose him this time around. Oppose
Hot Stop Hot Stop has a very interesting platform, but he was just recently blocked for making personal attacks. He seems to have a general problem with being nice to others. Take this edit summary, for instance. Inexperience issues aside, Hot Stop does not have the temperament to be an arbitrator. Strong Oppose
DeltaQuad DeltaQuad is a great administrator, but he never struck me as someone who would make a good arbitrator. Based on his statements relating to his candidacy, he doesn't seem to have really taken the time to understand the inner workings of ArbCom. Even looking past his relative lack of experience, I can't help but get the sense that dispute resolution isn't his strongest suit. Oppose
Risker I don't always agree with Risker's decisions, but I still love to read her very incisive commentary whenever I get the opportunity to do so. I have no doubt that she would continue to perform the job exceedingly well were she to be given a second term. Strong Support
Kww Right off the bat, his introductory paragraph makes me uncomfortable. I don't necessarily disagree with his stance that administrators should not use BLP as an excuse for inappropriate sysop actions, but I've never been convinced that such instances are frequent enough to constitute a major issue. In fact, I think enforcement of the BLP policy is a prime example of something where the community ought to forget about bureaucratic procedures and do what's right. Beyond that, I just think Kww comes across as being a bit gruff. He would obviously be one of the more stringent Arbitrators were he elected, which is neither positive nor negative in my books; however, I do want people who will be reasonably sympathetic to those who are facing the prospect of being banned from editing Wikipedia for a lack of competence. Kww is obviously very insightful and intelligent, and I happen to agree with most of what he says, but I'm just not convinced that ArbCom is the best suit for him. Oppose
Roger Davies Roger Davies is a lot like Kirill Lokshin, both in terms of personality and editing patterns. He has performed very well as an arbitrator over the past three years, but I'm wondering if maybe Roger's tenure as arbitrator is better left to expire. I feel like ArbCom should replace old arbitrators with new ones on an annual basis, and although I'm fine with re-electing certain members to the committee if their commentary is particularly insightful, I'm not sure if Roger is someone whose term ought to be extended. However, I've decided to support on balance. He is very hard-working and a true visionary for what ArbCom ought to be. Support