User:Rschen7754/ACE2013
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Previous guides: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
Standard disclaimer: This represents my views and opinions, especially on Wikipedia philosophy. I encourage you to do your own research.
Background
[edit]A bit about myself: editor since 2005, admin since 2005, OTRS agent since 2012. I am a contributor to the U.S. Roads project and have 6 FAs and 17 GAs. I have been following virtually all the 2012/2013 ArbCom cases, and have been an official party to three: Highways (2006), Highways 2 (2008), and Racepacket (2011). I have also commented on quite a few others: Ottava Rima restrictions, Civility enforcement, Kiefer Wolfowitz and Ironholds, and Infoboxes come to mind; I have also filed a few declined requests (another Racepacket one, one on the Featured articles process, and one on Youreallycan). I am an Arbitration Clerk trainee, and a full SPI clerk. I am also an admin on Wikidata, the English Wikivoyage, and Meta, and am a global sysop.
A bit about what I want in an arbitrator:
- Is on the side of harsher sanctions, but only when a harsher stance is deserved (not just handing out sanctions left and right). Sometimes, problematic editors (POV pushers, or people who try to bypass the consensus process and force their will on the article) have the ability to completely wreck a good content contributor's experience, and cause them to leave entirely; yet, there isn't enough consensus to deal with the matter. An arb really should "get" this, as this is one of the functions of the Committee.
- Believes in the balance between privacy and transparency.
- Knows that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and how that all works. We've had too many arbitrators/functionaries/admins recently who are clueless when it comes to content. Extensive content contributions are highly desired, but we can't have 15 content writers. I do expect that they at least know about content, even
- Has a good record both here and on other Wikimedia sites. Arbitrators aren't expected to have the skills that say, MedCom would, but should maintain a standard of decorum that is appropriate for a functionary, both here and globally. For my essay on global behavior, see User:Rschen7754/You represent the English Wikipedia!.
- Has a moderate stance on civility. I tend to lean towards a harsher stance on that, but after some events of last year, I am a bit wary of those who take a very hard line on that.
How this guide works
[edit]I read the answers to the questions that I've asked and score them as to how reasonable the answers are. I also score experience. I give out the final numbers after that. Towards the voting time I give out what my recommendations are (it's relative to the final scores; think of grading on a curve). Note that I reserve the right to deviate from the score this year.
The numerical system nowadays is used more as a sanity check/formality; I generally focus more on my comments nowadays. Besides, it's been a tradition since 2008...
Questions
[edit]This year I am not going to post the exact rubric that I use for scoring the questions; it does make things too easy to game (even though I change at least half of the questions each year). However, I will eventually post some comments about each question, so that the voters can understand where the question comes from.
- What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
- You know, I thought about throwing this question in the trash this year.
Yet people still miss it somehow. Thus, I decided to leave it in because it's a good way to tell who is familiar with the arbitration process, and who is not.
I have plans for next year's question though, to change things up a bit.
- What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
- The average score on this was 5.44/9. It's fairly low, though I tend to write hard questions.
What's my answer to the question? WikiProjects can set standards for articles. I've seen too many instances of "generalist" editors coming in, telling the subject experts how to write their articles, and then causing drama or driving the experts off when they don't get their way.
However, these standards should comply with the greater community consensus. One person does not a WikiProject make, and thus standards formed through such a project have little standing. When there's a dispute between the community and the WikiProject? Well sure, the community is entitled to say that the community consensus overrules the WikiProject consensus, but that's not the best option. It would be foolish to simply discard the opinions of subject experts. Both communities should follow our dispute resolution process to come to a consensus that takes both groups' views into account.
- Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
- Surprisingly, some people didn't think so, or said that it wasn't worth worrying about. They got 0-2 points.
Of the rest, I'm a huge subscriber to the belief that good contributions should not excuse bad behavior (and I mean more than just civility). Anything less got some points removed, but not all of them.
- a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
- My rubric for the question last year still stands (see User:Rschen7754/ACE2012).
- zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
- As there is no community desysop process on the English Wikipedia, the only way to remove adminship privileges is through the Arbitration Committee. We've had plenty of cases where in my opinion, the administrator should have lost the bit, but didn't because they apologized, even when the action was really bad. This sets a bad precedent, indicating that you get one "get out of jail free" card before you get desysopped.
- What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
- This has come up quite a few times this year. Roger Davies' response basically summarizes my thoughts on the matter. That being said, behavior on other Wikimedia sites should be weighted more if the behavior also is present here, since we can easily examine that behavior and since the sites are under our control.
- What is your definition of "outing"?
- This has been a recurring theme this year, so I thought that I would ask a question about it. I think plenty of people have given good answers, so I won't repeat them here.
I think this is a one-time use question, so I won't repeat it next year.
- What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
- Most people do not realize this, but managing the CU/OS teams is one of ArbCom's responsibilities. I used this question to see what people's views about the use of these tools were, and see if candidates had problematic views of using the tools. Non-arbitrator CU/OS holders get much more screening in regards to their knowledge of CU/OS policies compared to ArbCom candidates, who are lucky to get even one question about CU/OS. I believe that ArbCom's management of those who use those tools has been a bit problematic this year, as noted by quite a few incidents.
The second half of the question was to see who was familiar with cross-wiki affairs; arbitrators who are not knowledgeable about this sort of thing have done some odd things in the past on other wikis.
- Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
- This was scored on an all-or-nothing basis. I've seen some odd things from arbitrators who do not appear to have experienced these sorts of disputes beforehand.
- Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
- Anything coherent and sensible, even if I didn't necessarily agree, got points.
- Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
- Well, obviously we don't want to elect an arbitrator and then have them removed because they won't identify.
As for my own thoughts on it? It does not do enough to protect the privacy of functionaries. However, I have been assured by WMF that the proposal has zero chance of passing as is. I am not sure how I feel about the proposal to eliminate the requirement entirely though.
Experience
[edit]FA/GA: 4 points
- +2 points: Any featured or good content.
- +2 points: Has a FA.
Tenure: 3 points Have you been a Wikipedia editor for a decent length of time and made a proportionate amount of edits during that time?
- 1 point for each full year (counting from November 1), capping at 3.
Edit count: 4 points The edit count divided by 20,000, capping at 4 points (80,000 edits).
Administrator: 4 points Are you an administrator? How long have you been an administrator?
- 4 points: Yes, over 2 years
- 3 points: Yes, over 1 year
- 2 points: Yes
- 0 points: No
- Former admins: under a cloud, 0 points; voluntary/inactive, calculate as above but -1 point.
- ArbCom desysopped and resysopped admins: calculate second tenure only.
- Resysopped admins: factor in gaps of a year or more.
Experience: 4 points Have you participated in a formal committee that will give you experience in ArbCom?
- +4 points: ArbCom
- +2 points: Bureaucrat, CheckUser, oversighter, steward, AUSC, ArbCom clerk, ArbCom-appointed groups, MedCom, Ombudsman Commission, Language Committee, OTRS admin, WMF staff/contracting
- +1 point: OTRS, SPI clerk, CCI clerk, featured content process delegate, MILHIST coordinator, lawyer, BAG, CU/OS on other wiki, ArbCom on other wiki, global sysop
- Maximum is 4 points. Former positions count as long as duration was substantial and the reason for resigning was uncontroversial.
- The following combinations will not be double-counted, and will be awarded the larger of the two point values for the position: CU and SPI clerk, AUSC and functionary (CU/OS)
Statement: 2 points Was your statement well thought out (why are they running)? Was it reasonable and not a "let's go sack ArbCom" statement?
- +1 point: For the two questions
Record: 4 points
- 0 points: Visible problems such as RFC or ArbCom, bad block log, sock issues
- 1 point: Obvious problems with demeanor (contribution check or from anything I can recall)
- 3 points: (default)
- 4 points: Thank you (strictly enforced this year). Does not blow up with anger in the responses.
Total: 25 * 1.2 = 30%
Results
[edit]I will list editors in alphabetical order. Any initial comments are simply that; if you wow me with your answers to the questions, that can make a huge difference.
Recommendations are solely for suitability in a possible role as an arbitrator. Please don't take this personally!
| Editor | Thoughts | Questions score /70 | Experience score /30 | Total | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28bytes (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Bureaucrat.
The answer to the WikiProject question is really good, and I think he really gets that issue. The answers to the rest of the questions are generally well-written and cohesive, showing good communication skills. His answer to the tango question is noteworthy too. That being said, the lack of personal involvement in content dispute resolution is a concern, but I don't think it would be something the candidate couldn't understand. I also get the feeling that he tends towards the lenient side. But I feel comfortable supporting regardless. |
57.96 | 20.76 | 78.72 |  Support
|
| AGK (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
The rumor is that he is running. Now, he is. Current arbitrator, ran in 2009 unsuccessfully (88.76, Support), ran again in 2011 successfully (74.45, Neutral). Awaiting answers.
Looking at the answers to the questions, they were generally reasonable. The main exception was the WikiProject question; I fundamentally disagree with that as then there's little other purpose for a WikiProject. The last third of the answer seemed reasonable though. Moving out to the bigger picture, a lot has happened during AGK's term. In my opinion, they generally voted reasonably, even on the more hot-button issues of late 2012. The other thing that I have to note is AGK's willingness to tell things like it is; in my opinion, it cuts both ways. I think that people appreciate the openness that his comments usually bring, and feel that it increases the trust level of an already floundering committee. With that being said, there have been a few instances (such as following Coren's resignation) where I thought his comments were a bit too caustic for an arbitrator. I think people's trust in incumbent arbitrators (especially those that have served multiple prior terms) is fairly low right now, but AGK has served only one term, and he is doing a lot of good, so I think another term would be a Good Thing. |
59.12 | 23.97 | 83.10 | Support
|
| Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Sanctioned in the Tea Party Movement case, and blocked quite a few times as an admin.
Has made a minimal effort to answer the questions, and I doubt he will get to them over the next 24 hours. That, combined with the background, brings an Oppose. |
0.00 | 15.60 | 15.60 |  Oppose
|
| Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Ran last year (87.56, Support). Awaiting answers to questions. Oversighter. Edit summary incident earlier this year. Pro-functionaries though.
Well, the answers to the questions were not that good this year. The WikiProject question was flat out wrong, for one; it almost made WikiProjects seem like a joke. I wasn't that happy with the administrator conduct question either. The IDIOTS incident gives me pause; I'm not certain that something like that wouldn't happen again. And it reflects badly on this site when someone gets blocked on Meta; I'm an admin on Meta, and they are *still* talking about it, even though it was in 2012. With that being said, I've been disappointed this year in the relationship between ArbCom and the functionary team, from what I've heard. (Side note: if any current or future arbs are reading this, if I'm hearing this from several sources, and also seeing the number of candidates from WP:CUOS2013 there's something very wrong with this relationship!) And his stances on a lot of things are fairly reasonable. So I'm not opposing this either; the points come out to neutral, and I'll leave it that way. |
45.87 | 18.45 | 64.32 |  Neutral
|
| Bwilkins (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Jimbo doesn't think this guy should be an admin. Combative behavior, and using the tools in that behavior. The way that he avoided the consequences was to shift to his non-admin alternate account, EatsShootsAndLeaves until people forgot about the whole thing... problem is, he still acts like an admin on that account, performing admin actions [1]. And he had already done this before. Furthermore, I've been very disgusted with the way that he's persistently treated certain good-faith editors: 1[2]3 They may have made mistakes in the past, but that is not how we respond to them - it comes off as way more personalized than necessary. Strong oppose. This is someone who should not have adminship (and where a RFC/ArbCom request process could very well have resulted in the removal of his tools), let alone arbitrator.
My decision to oppose before the questions were answered was because I don't see myself supporting this candidate this time around regardless of the answers. I rarely do this, which shows how very concerned I am about this candidacy (also see David Gerard's). However, I will still read it and comment on the answers. Addendum: In retrospect, I think that my "strong oppose" was too premature, and I have apologized for that. I don't think any failure to answer my questions on his part should be viewed by itself as a slight on his candidacy. I do think he means well. With that being said, the nature of the concerns will still have to be an oppose from me at this time. He answered a few of the questions, but some of the answers were not very well thought out or just flat out wrong (like the WikiProject question). Voting has started, so I suppose that will be the final score. |
25.21 | 12.86 | 38.07 | Oppose
|
| David Gerard (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Ex-arb from way back. Also had CU and OS removed by ArbCom with a bit of drama. Statement is worrisome. Under an ArbCom restriction and was admonished a month or two ago. Strong oppose, don't feel like I need to say more.
I have a feeling that he won't answer any of the questions. He answered most of the questions... and it's basically as worrisome as his statement. "This also ties into how functioning anarchies actually work, as noted above: every functioning anarchy has an old-boy network at the core, and that people who aren't in a given group are shocked, shocked to find that other editors know each other." ...! "The case where the 2013 arbcom deadminned Ironholds on the completely novel charge of "conduct unbecoming a staff member", as if that's in any way in arbcom's remit, was particularly egregious" - uh, that's not what he was desysopped for... "I've spoken to Ombudsman Committee members, and have been greatly reassured as to the quality of the supervision process." That's great but until now, the OC has no authority over the use of the OS tool... Yep, this just reinforces my strong oppose. |
28.57 | 22.80 | 51.37 |  Strong oppose
|
| Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. That being said, I have concerns about some of their more unilateral admin actions. Resigned twice since their 2010 RFA.
Well, here's how it goes... the candidate refused to answer most of the questions, on the grounds of it being "an unreasonable number of questions for one user to ask all of the candidates to answer". Besides the concerns of "if he can't handle answering 100 questions, how is he gonna handle ArbCom?", that makes him one of only a few candidates in the last 4 elections to not answer most of the questions, without extenuating circumstances (Balloonman in 2010 withdrew during voting, Loosmark in 2010 was banned during the elections, and Elen of the Roads in 2012 had other pressing matters). Not good at all. In addition to this, I have concerns about some of their more controversial admin actions. In October 2012, they blocked sitting arbitrator Jclemens in the "not a Wikipedian" saga. I think the consensus is clear that Jclemens should not have made that remark, but to block him over 24 hours after making that remark (punitive, not preventative) and then to fullprotect one's talk page thereafter is just... prone to raise more drama. A few months later, they went and made three controversial unblocks in the space of 90 minutes; the merits of those blocks may have been questionable, but rogue unblocks were not the way to go, especially after 25 minutes of discussion with no consensus. This pattern seems to continue into the present day, when recently he converted a clear consensus for an indefinite block into a "postponed indefinite block" and topic ban, and only added the block when he discovered sensitive material. I won't say which user, because there was sensitive material involved, but I think enough readers will know which user. In summary, I don't think that this tendency to cause unnecessary drama, or to act controversially/unilaterally without the consensus of the community, is a good trait to have in an arbitrator. |
8.81 | 14.13 | 22.94 | Oppose
|
| Gamaliel (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions.
Taking a while to answer the questions. Not a good sign. I'm giving him a while longer to answer, just in case, but considering that he hasn't answered some of the general questions, this is not looking good, especially since he was one of the first candidates. Likely oppose. Well, he finally answered the questions. Numerically, this comes out above the highest neutral, but below the lowest support (and this was the last candidate I decided on), and the gaps on both sides are on the order of a few percent, so this is a tough call. But quite a few things are tipping me towards neutral here: the zero on the delay question (showing little familiarity with the arbitration process), the edit warring pointed out by Heimstern's guide, and the lengthy delay in answering questions. I was not pleased with the answer to the WikiProject question, either: "However, WikiProject guidelines cannot override the consensus of the wider community." - well that's true, but the community should not be going "we win and you lose, winner takes all". So in the end, this is a tough call, but I'll have to go Neutral on this one. |
50.67 | 19.12 | 69.79 | Neutral
|
| Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Ran in 2010 (68.86, didn't finish answering the questions).
The other guides have pointed out inactivity, and I have to agree that that is concerning. The answers to the questions were not good; some were completely off. Haven't decided if I will go neutral or oppose here - the redeeming quality is that he's got legitimate concerns... but not all of them could or should be solved by ArbCom. |
36.62 | 16.50 | 53.11 | Oppose
|
| GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Oversighter appointed this year.
Overall the answers to the questions were fairly sensible, and I already have a good impression of her from her work as an op on IRC channels. That being said, this support isn't particularly strong since the candidate has little experience in the dispute resolution processes (tango question, content dispute question, general question related to dispute resolution). I've seen some... odd things from past arbitrators who didn't seem to understand how disputes work, and how they get started, and why the heck they wind up before ArbCom in the first place. Thus, this support is highly influenced by what I know of the candidate otherwise, since it was borderline (ditto with Guerillero below). |
54.20 | 21.88 | 76.08 |  Weak support
|
| Guerillero (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Ran last year (69.71, Neutral). AUSC member, appointed oversighter. Awaiting answers to questions.
Looking through, his answers were generally reasonable, which coincides with my interactions with him here and on Wikidata. That being said, some of the answers were a little bit terse and undetailed, which was a bit disappointing. The WikiProject question was a bit off. I think he really understood the tango question very well though. But beyond that, he's proposed some concrete reforms, he's been around long enough to understand the issues that hit ArbCom the most, and he's generally been sensible in other areas, and has contributed audited content. Numerically this came out 1 point below the lowest support I have now, but with all this I'm willing to bump this up to a Support. |
54.20 | 20.01 | 74.21 | Weak support
|
| Isarra (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Not an admin here, but has OTRS access and is a coder and admin out on MediaWiki.org.
Going to go neutral here. The answers to the questions were better than what I was expecting, and the humor aside, she does seem to understand quite a bit how this site works. But she doesn't have a lot of the experience that the other candidates have, and some of the answers were off (IRC is NOT something that should be regulated by ArbCom) so for now I can't support. But maybe in the future. That being said, there are worse candidates. |
52.76 | 11.21 | 63.97 | Neutral
|
| Kraxler (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Not an admin. Also edits dewiki.
So far, the answers to the questions are not very good. "I wasn't aware of the existence of "sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia", and I certainly won't take any notice of them"... uh? "It's appropriate for ArbCom to take any case. The arbs will have to read the initially presented evidence, and make up their minds." ... "Sorry, I didn't write the English dictionary. There is no such thing as "my" definition of a common English word. Feel free to consult Outing, Outing (disambiguation) and WP:OUTING." - comes off as a bit rude, not good for an arbitrator He has yet to answer two questions, and I'm waiting on clarification for a third... but the answers are so far off base that I don't see any way this will leave the Oppose range. He may know content policies very well, but not conduct policies, or the issues that ArbCom faces every day. |
9.81 | Oppose
| ||
| Ks0stm (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Ran last year (score 74.24, Weak support). Came in at around 33% in the overall votes last year. Note: fellow roads project member and I did discuss their candidacy with them. Awaiting answers to questions.
Overall, he has a lot more experience than last year, and became an ArbCom clerk, and oversighter. He did better on the questions; most of the lost points amount to differences in opinion or minor nitpicks rather than lack of experience as was the case last year. I wish he would take a slightly firmer stance on admin misconduct, and there was a bit missing from the tango question. And the answer to the vision question wasn't that inspiring. But generally he seems to know what he's doing, and a plus is that he has very little baggage. Leaning support, depending on the field. |
57.72 | 22.34 | 80.05 | Support
|
| Kww (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Ran 2011, (65.23, Oppose), 2012 (53.97, Oppose). Very pro-civility stance, bit too far in my opinion. Awaiting answers to questions.
"C) Wikiprojects have been forcibly disbanded before, and may be again." Not good. "I think IRC falls squarely in Arbcom's remit, despite its reluctance to step up to the plate in that regard." Ouch. "The CU tool is clearly underused: our policies restricting its usage need to be reviewed and relaxed." From my time as a SPI clerk, I've seen him willing to try and work around the clerks to get what he wanted done, because clerks/CUs at SPI would decline his requests. Besides this overall going against the WMF privacy policy. Not good. That, with the civility stance (I was particularly unhappy with the block of Malleus in the incident involving Floquenbeam linked above; it seemed that in an already tense situation, Kww decided that the community should indefinitely block Malleus, and did so), leads to a firm oppose from me. With that being said, his successful plan to get VE removed from enwiki as a default is worth noting. |
40.42 | 18.81 | 59.23 | Oppose
|
| LFaraone (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Appointed CU/OS this year. Good OTRS agent, dealing with all sorts of BLP issues.
He's still working on the last question, but I feel comfortable bumping this one into the Support territory, based on what I have seen. He has a good understanding of privacy-related issues, as well as the ability to handle the more legal matters that OTRS agents sometimes find themselves in (which I cannot go into further detail about). With that being said, I wish I saw more experience in content-related dispute resolution. The WikiProject question could have been more nuanced, but I think they get it... yet, it's a bit hard to tell. "I would hope that most cases of administrative abuse could be handled via community processes." ... well, the community cannot desysop people, so.... But yet the candidate clearly has something to add to the Committee, and would not damage it. In fact, you could probably apply a lot of the same thinking from GorillaWarfare and Guerillero here. |
22.46 | Support
| ||
| NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Appointed CU this year.
I figured that the answers would be fairly decent, having worked with him out at SPI, and I anticipated supporting. With that being said, I was quite impressed by the answer to the WikiProject question and the admin conduct question. As far as the latter, that is the only perfect score I've given out in this election for that question, and one of the few that I expect to give out. I believe that ArbCom needs to be more willing to desysop. He did well on the other questions, with the exception of the "remit" question, which I think was an issue of how it was worded, looking at the response. He also has an interest in content creation, which also helps - since he was a former coordinator of the Military History WikiProject (which I didn't realize until today). His crosswiki familiarity is well above average, too. I expect this to be one of the few Strong Supports that I give in this election. |
63.53 | 22.29 | 85.82 |  Strong support
|
| RegentsPark (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Ran in 2012 (68.10, Oppose). Awaiting answers to questions. I find Heimstern's points particularly concerning. Yet, there are some much worse candidates, so I'm going neutral. More details later.
RegentsPark hasn't finished one question, but I've seen enough to know where this one will land. Looking at Heimstern's guide, he points to the "most recent unblock" of Darkness Shines. I think that's a gross understatement: there's 3 unblocks that RegentsPark did! An admin should never be doing 3 unblocks for any individual editor. I still have the same "vested contributor" concerns as last time, noting the questions. I personally find the "I don't contribute content, but I defend content contributors" in any candidate to be a bit of an odd gambit, and the same holds true here. He's also an (inactive) admin on the English Wikivoyage, and another admin did not have good things to say over email about him (disclosure: I was briefly opposed in my adminship candidacy by the candidate, though it was later withdrawn). But people love him, and there are much worse candidates running. |
48.85 | 15.59 | 64.44 | Neutral
|
| Richwales (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Ran last year (score 71.60, Neutral). Last year I went neutral because I thought he needed more experience. Now he's a current AUSC member, and a current SPI clerk. Awaiting answers to questions, and waiting to see where the other candidates fall.
Well, the answers to the questions, as well as experience, and my overall impressions are all better than last year, though a few of the answers were a bit lacking. He did alright as a SPI clerk, and offered to continue with parts of the role after he became part of AUSC. I think he nailed part of the WikiProject question, but he missed the other side of the equation. Some of the other answers were really good, notably vested contributors. With that being said, the other thing that gives me pause is his running on a platform of civility. It makes me a bit uncomfortable when people run on a platform of civility, both for, and against - but maybe that's because of past arbitrators who have campaigned on that same platform, and how things turned out there. Even then, this comment is insightful. That being said, we could do a lot worse, and he seems clueful, so this may even turn into a weak support, depending on the other candidates. |
61.82 | 23.61 | 85.43 | Support
|
| Roger Davies (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Would be third time on the Committee. Elected 2011 (92.72, Support) and 2008 (73.00, Support).
Well, he hit the ball out of the park on the questions and got the highest score so far, same as 2011. Not really much of a surprise there. So the other thing to look at is his performance as an arbitrator. I am a bit concerned about availability, as sometimes there are gaps of a week or more where he does not edit. Looking through his votes, they've been generally reasonable, so I feel okay supporting this time around. I don't know if I would support him (or anyone) for a fourth term, however. I'm not making this a Strong Support though, because so far arbs who have gotten reelected for a third term have not outperformed what they have done in their first two terms (though there is not much data available on that, admittedly). |
62.93 | 25.90 | 88.83 | Support
|
| Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions.
Looking through the answers to the questions and doing a cursory ANI search, I'm liking what I'm seeing. Seems to be on the stricter side of things, which is good in my book. I think he "gets" what content disputes are about, and I really like his answer to that particular question I asked, and the vested contributors question. The concerns about the Tea Party case also hit the nail on the head. AE experience is also a plus. A few nitpicks here and there, thought the answer to the tango question was a bit off. With the only major lack of points being from experience (especially since AE does not factor into the calculation), I might be inclined to support even if it is a bit off the scale. |
61.86 | 15.78 | 77.64 | Support
|
| The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Not very encouraged by this though.
I was actually a bit surprised at how relatively well the candidate did on a few of the questions (the only perfect score on the WikiProject question, for one). That being said, their interpretation of outing and off-wiki harassment (and certain instances of it being okay) is worrisome. The answer to the vested contributors question, where he defends the existence of the problem, is also concerning. Looking at the answer to SirFozzie's question: "An admin with a clean block log and no sanctions is not as likely to know what it is like to be on the receiving end of their actions." I think there's some element of truth to that, and I can see where they are coming from, having made my own mistakes in the past. But in the end, the community expects such candidates to have learned from their mistakes and show marked improvement in their efforts to work with the community. The topic bans, blocks, ArbCom sanctions as late as September 2013, and some of their past comments on arbitration/administrative discussions (some of them inflammatory, some of them just flat out wrong) indicate to me that the improvement is not there. So for me this is a firm Oppose, even though this one of the higher scores out of the opposes as of this writing. |
49.53 | 9.40 | 58.93 | Oppose
|
The actual scores
[edit]So far, the scores are all coming in fairly low, a bit lower than I expected. I'm going to see how things go before making any "official" recommendations though, but my guess is that the scale will be significantly lower than last year.
The general scale I used this year: Above 74% - Support, 62 to 70% - Neutral, Below 62% - Oppose. The average score (of the people who completed the questions as of this writing) was 66.34%.
Guide to guides
[edit]It's always good to get other editors' opinions to get a better perspective. But quite a few guides are created to push an agenda. Well, all of them do push an agenda, but some are more extreme than others.
If a guide is not listed here, that doesn't necessarily mean I think it is bad; I am only listing the outstanding ones.
Recommend: Reaper Eternal, Hahc21, Sven Manguard, NuclearWarfare, Heimstern