Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides
These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion. Ealdgyth SandyGeorgia Rschen7754 Badger Drink NuclearWarfare Joe Gazz84 Guerillero Carcharoth Heimstern Master&Expert RegentsPark Kiefer.Wolfowitz Sven Manguard HJ Mitchell Monty845 Elonka Wizardman William M. Connolley

Jotting down here some thoughts on the 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections. The intention was to ask individual questions of each candidate before voting started, but I have not had time for that this year (though I may still ask questions and see what answers are provided during the voting phase). What I did for last year's election is here.

As someone who was an arbitrator for two years (2009 and 2010), one of my main focuses here is on assessing candidates on the basis of my experience from those two years, and also getting a feel for how any arbs that I worked with have done during the past year (comparing that to how they did while I was working with them in previous years). Unlike last year, when I was still a sitting arbitrator during the election, I intend to be more forthright this year in my opinions. The only other former arbitrator who has commented on the elections, as far as I know, is Wizardman, who has written a guide giving his views on the candidates in this election.

Additionally, a few hours after voting commenced, I wrote a summary regarding the committee and seat numbers for previous elections. I then carried on assessing the candidates, with the conclusions below not completed until some time after voting had started (though voting was scheduled to run for around two weeks).

In the entries below:

(i) Initial view, mostly based on candidate guide.
(ii) View after reading the candidate's statement.
(iii) View after reading the candidate's answers to questions.
(iv) General comments and thoughts on the candidate.
(v) Final vote, after reading other candidate-related pages.

Please direct any comments to the talk page (including the candidates, who are more than welcome to comment on what I've said).

Candidates who are current or former arbitrators

Coren
(i) Undecided

(ii) Probable oppose

(iii) Maintain oppose

(iv) Statement didn't do much for me. Agree with others that more engagement with the community is needed. Also, running for a third term is not great, though if elected serving for 5 years is still just within my limits (see what I've said with regard to Kirill's candidacy). But even without that, my view is that Coren is the weakest of the incumbents running for re-election in terms of how they have performed as an arbitrator. Addendum - my concerns are best articulated by the questions posed to Coren by Cool Hand Luke, particularly the one about cases stalling. It is also good that the matter of the July 2009 resignation has been aired. I accept that Coren had his reasons for resigning then, but his return set an unwelcome precedent that thankfully was only repeated once in public as far as I know - my view is that once you resign, you should stay resigned or seek re-election, especially if the resignation was based on a matter of principle.

(v) Oppose
Hersfold
(i) Undecided

(ii) Undecided

(iii) Probable support

(iv) Statement well-written, but some concerns. Answers to questions were OK, and am happy to support here. The previous experience and recognition of the need to self-organise and make time available, or get out of the way, is a plus, as is the technical side of things.

(v) Support
Jclemens
(i) Undecided

(ii) Undecided

(iii) Probable support

(iv) Good statement, but some concerns. The answers to the questions were well-done and individual, not generalised hand-waving. I liked the way he spoke to his experience from the previous year's work, and (from the sound of it) got involved with lots of different aspects of committee work. I see the concerns raised by others, but I'm less concerned about them than some are, for two reasons: (i) the candidate appears to be learning from those matters (this can be a slow process that takes time); and (ii) the check provided by fellow arbitrators appears to be working. This candidate won't be the first or last arbitrator to take a position completely against community and committee consensus, and I'd much prefer someone who took an individual stance on occasion rather than someone who just agreed with everyone else. Finally, even if this candidate is not re-elected, I like the comment about being willing to write about his experiences this year and help new arbs settle in.

(v) Support
Kirill Lokshin
(i) Undecided

(ii) Probable oppose

(iii) Maintain oppose

(iv) Statement put too much emphasis on experience. Cannot in good conscience support anyone for a third term, which will result in 7 years on the committee with only a break of a few months. Two terms and 5 years is my limit for any candidate. Others have just as much experience, and would not want to see any keen new candidate lose out to those who have become part of the furniture. Will take the same stance with anyone at any point in future years running for a third consecutive term as well.

(v) Oppose
Risker
(i) Probable support

(ii) Maintain support

(iii) Maintain support

(iv) Excellent statement. Am supporting this time around because of responses to questions and knowing from working with them what they bring to the committee. But this is for a 2-year term following a 3-year one. I would hope that any arbitrators that are elected to serve 2 years after a 3-year term (as Newyorkbrad was last year) are: (a) very clear on what they are intending to achieve in those two years; and (b) have the sense to move on or take a long break of a few years after those five consecutive years on the committee.

(v) Support
Roger Davies
(i) Probable support

(ii) Maintain support

(iii) Maintain support

(iv) Statement is well-presented. Am supporting this time around because of responses to questions and knowing from working with them what they bring to the committee. But this is for a 2-year term following a 3-year one. I would hope that any arbitrators that are elected to serve 2 years after a 3-year term (as Newyorkbrad was last year) are: (a) very clear on what they are intending to achieve in those two years; and (b) have the sense to move on or take a long break of a few years after those five consecutive years on the committee.

(v) Support

Candidates who are not current or former arbitrators

AGK
(i) Undecided

(ii) Probable support

(iii) Maintain support

(iv) One of the better-worded statements. Reasonable answers to questions. Slightly concerned at a tendency to sometimes say too much when saying less might be better, or rather to come up with a long and detailed explanation when a shorter one would work better, but that might change with time and experience.

(v) Support
Courcelles
(i) Undecided

(ii) Probable support

(iii) Maintain support

(iv) Statement was OK. Answers to questions were not as good as I thought they might be, but still adequate to get a support from me. Some of the explanations could be worded better, and I'm glad someone brought up the editing history and large amounts of edits. It shows that people are checking this for the candidates. One final comment (which applies to all candidates and not just this one): in past years, some candidates get large amounts of support in the elections, but this doesn't tend to indicate who will perform best in the role once the hard work starts and when the proverbial starts to hit the fan. The real hard work comes in drafting cases and actually getting things done in high-pressure situations (or correctly identifying how to ease the pressure and work towards a solution to whatever the crisis is).

(v) Support
DeltaQuad
(i) Probable oppose

(ii) Maintain oppose

(iii) Maintain oppose

(iv) Statement reads strangely and sets off red flags. Answers to questions were not bad, but overall not enough for me to support, though of the three I initially marked down as opposes, would be most likely to support here if there are not other candidates that are better.

(v) Oppose
Eluchil404
(i) Undecided

(ii) Probable oppose

(iii) Probable support

(iv) Statement not great. Answers to questions were very good, and enough to persuade me to support. The overall tenor of the answers demonstrated a large amount of clue and understanding of Wikipedia and arbitration, and I was pleasantly surprised by this. I do regret not having found time to read this candidate's answers before now, and judging them on the basis of their initial statement, but am comfortable supporting here.

(v) Support
Geni
(i) Undecided

(ii) Probable oppose

(iii) Maintain oppose

(iv) Statement doesn't really say much. Answers to questions varied from too short to practical. So not as bad as some, but not enough to persuade me to support. I did like "I have no intention of running on the basis of what arbcom did last year" - that is a good answer. Other examples are: recognising human nature, and "It happens from time to time. Arbcom just has to do the best it can in such cases.". Might support a candidacy in future years, but while the 'wide array of areas' is good, some more examples of productive dispute resolution (i.e. resolving disputes between others) would be needed.

(v) Oppose
Hot Stop
(i) Probable oppose

(ii) Maintain oppose

(iii) Maintain oppose

(iv) Interesting statement (but if voting for an outsider, I'd chose someone else). Answers to questions were better than I expected, but still not enough to make me support given other issues raised elsewhere.

(v) Oppose
Kww
(i) Undecided

(ii) Probable oppose

(iii) Maintain oppose

(iv) Expected a longer statement, with more substance. Some of the answers to the questions had more substance, but many were too short. When longer answers were provided, it was possible to get more of a handle on what this candidate stands for. The questions from Michaeldsuarez were handled well, as were the questions from Newyorkbrad. The length of the response to the question from Gimmetoo was probably excessive, though. Being able to decide whether a long explanation or a short one is best is an important skill in arbitration. On balance, while I have respect for the arguments Kww makes, I don't think this is what is needed on ArbCom.

(v) Oppose
NWA.Rep
(i) Probable oppose

(ii) Maintain oppose

(iii) Maintain oppose

(iv) Statement is a rant. Answers to questions were refreshing and better than I expected, but not enough.

(v) Oppose
Panyd
(i) Undecided

(ii) Undecided

(iii) Undecided

(iv) Statement reads better than I remembered, and is one of the better ones. Have now read the questions and answers, and some of the answers are good, but many are not so good and these currently (in my mind) outweigh the good answers. So I'm still undecided here (though leaning oppose), but may revisit this candidacy as I'm still looking for an eighth candidate to support, but whether it will be this one or one of my current 'probable opposes', I'm not sure yet. Update: with regret, am opposing. I am happy with the supports I have so far, and I don't think abstaining is useful in elections such as these. With more experience in dispute resolution, might support in a future year.

(v) Oppose
SilkTork
(i) Undecided

(ii) Probable oppose

(iii) Probable support

(iv) Unimpressed with statement, which at times was poorly written and effusive. As with Eluchil404, the answers that SilkTork gave to the questions were sufficient to persuade me to switch to support. My one concern here is that this candidate, if elected, may not be fully prepared for the pressure arbitrators can come under, but that applies to other candidates as well. Hopefully all those elected will ease their way into the role.

(v) Support
Worm That Turned
(i) Undecided

(ii) Probable support

(iii) Maintain support

(iv) Statement is clear and concise. Answers to questions were adequate, if not always the best. In general, though, the answers were thoughtful enough that I am comfortable supporting here.

(v) Support

Voting

Last year I supported 17 candidates and opposed 5 candidates. This high spread of support is usually because I have found no concerns sufficient to oppose - I'm a strong believer that those unsuitable to the role for reasons not immediately apparent to the electorate will not last the distance, and those suitable to the role will adapt and grow into the position, hence I often cast a support where others might cast an oppose. This year there are 17 candidates. On an initial look at the list and statements and questions and answers this year, there are some immediate supports and opposes apparent, with most needing more thought and a closer look at what they would bring to the committee.

Summary so far:

Support (9): Hersfold, Jclemens, Risker, Roger Davies, AGK, Courcelles, Eluchil404, SilkTork, Worm That Turned
Oppose (8): Coren, Kirill Lokshin, DeltaQuad, Geni, Hot Stop, Kww, NWA.Rep, Panyd

The above votes made and the vote is recorded in the voter log at 13:20, 7 December 2011. Carcharoth (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)