Ah, it's that time of year again. Yes, that's right, it's election season, and a menagerie of masochists are standing for election to Wikipedia's supreme court cum governing body cum dumping ground for everything that can't be handled somewhere else (and some things that can). I speak, of course, of the Arbitration Committee.
You won't find any fancy tables or numerical scoring here. Just my thoughts, offered for whatever they're worth. Discussion, deliberation, and dissent are welcome on the talk page.
Preamble
I've had the privilege to meet several current and former arbitrators over the last few years, and I've got to know some of them quite well, which has given me a different perspective on ArbCom. One thing I always knew from my own dealings with ArbCom but which becomes abundantly clear when you talk to arbs is that what we see on Wikipedia is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of arbs' workload. Over the years, ArbCom has accumulated (and in a few cases grabbed) responsibility for all sorts of things that have little or nothing to do with arbitration. They deal with all manner of things related to privacy, which, by their nature, cannot be talked about outside of ArbCom. They also handle ban appeals, oversee functionaries, and handle all sorts of other things which place demands on their time. And that's before we start thinking about the workload created by case requests, cases, clarification/amendment requests, etc.
My conclusion? I hate to say it, but we do need an ArbCom. Many of its functions should be passed to the WMF, delegated (or returned) to the community, or disposed of by other means. It needs to start focusing on its core functions and allow other bodies to focus on the other functions rather than trying to be all things to all people. That would significantly reduce the workload and make the job saner; it would also mean that we could start focusing on electing people to resolve disputes and worry less about their ability to do other parts of the job. That said, even with just the on-wiki work to keep the committee ticking over (though some of them might actually have time to edit the encyclopaedia!). Without an ultimate authority able to issue binding decisions and, when necessary, ban/desysop/restrict, it becomes too easy for factions and cliques to dominate decision-making, which (in my opinion) is the root cause of many of the problems on Commons.
So I'm looking for sensible candidates who would seek to shrink ArbCom's purview (while ensuring that any responsibilities it sheds are taken up by a competent body). I want arbs who don't jump to conclusions but can patiently weigh complex arguments, who understand the community, and who are willing to change their opinion if presented with a compelling argument. A dogmatic, ban-happy approach rarely solves anything.
blocked twice for personal attacks. Come across him a few times under his former username and strikes me as a little too short-tempered. Relatively low edit count, not an admin, not an article-writer ... Often makes sensible comments (but as I say, can be short-tempered and abrupt) at areas around the main page. Doesn't really have the sort of experience arbs need to do the job properly.
Nice bloke. I got the feeling that he was a little too zealous with bans for my taste during his first term, but all things considered I think he was an asset. He has sufficient common sense, roots in the community, and he was a decent front-line admin back when he was a mere mortal. He's also involved in various other projects, which comes in handy from time to time.
I like DQ. He seems very personable from the interactions we've had, and he's effective as a checkuser. My only slight hesitation is that sometimes he strikes me as a little over-zealous and at others not always willing to spend a lot of time on an issue. For example, in this SPI (it sticks out in my memory because of the relative complexity of the issue rather than because of DQ specifically) DQ ran an initial check but didn't look deeper and didn't return to the case, which I found a little disappointing because it transpired (as I had suspected, and said as much at the SPI) that the origins of the sockfarm went further back than was obvious from the accounts listed. I suspect this is youthful enthusiasm, and certainly there's nothing wrong with being keen to help. I just wonder how effective he would be at evaluating complex evidence and whether he might put expedience first. Still, he has relevant experience and he doesn't lack anything that can't be learnt through experience. Update: As other guide writers have said, an ArbCom with 15 DeltaQuad's would be terrible (as indeed would an ArbCom of 15 Neyworkbrads or Harry Mitchells), but one could be a very useful addition to the committee. There are still some old hands on ArbCom, so they should provide a moderating influence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Very sensible editor, very well-respected admin, and somebody for whom I have a lot of time. If elected, I suspect he would either hate it and resign mid-term to do something more sane or take to it like a duck to water and become the next Newyorkbrad. Update: I have some reservations about whether he knows what he'd face on the darker side of ArbCom, but I think he'd be excellent at the dispute resolution side. I'm going to support. In a significantly deeper pool, I might have been a bit fussier, since cases are now a minority of Arbcom's workload, but they're still arguably the most important. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
A very experienced, sensible, and very well-respected editor. Not one of the 'usual suspects', which means he's a breath of fresh air. The downside of that is that it raises a question as to whether he's seen much of the sort of stuff ArbCom have to deal with. But he's been around a long time and demonstrated a commitment to the project, so he's unlikely to quit mid-term. From what I've seen of him, he's level-headed and diligent, and all in all I think he's one of the best candidates in the running.
This is a non-starter. Failed RfA, edit-warring block. Seems friendly enough, but there are red flags and a lack of experience (no significant article work, no significant involvement on talk pages, most edited page on the entire wiki is their CSD log). No doubt they mean well, but an arb would need a lot more experience to discharge their duties effectively. And of course, there's the elephant in the room—if you could get elected to ArbCom, presumably you could have passed an RfA (as horrible and broken as that process is).
Pretty much the only name on the list that I don't recognise. That could be a good thing or a bad thing... Update: With Phil's withdrawal, I need to find another candidate to support. Having read Euryalus' answers to the absurd volume of questions, I think he'd do a decent job. He seems to have experience of the darker side of adminship, which will stand him in good stead, and he certainly seems sane. I was impressed by his answer to Fae's question; the question was absurd and borderline trolling (the very wording suggests he knows what the answer is likely to be, and it's almost impossible to answer in a way that doesn't suggest you should feel ashamed of your gender/sexual orientation'etc), but Euryalus got his point across well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I like him. Quite a lot, actually. But I'm not sure he has the temperament for ArbCom; hasn't been very active on the wiki recently and has a tendency to get into drama. He's very good at being the institutional memory and at digging up long forgotten-about discussions; I trust his judgement on many things, but not on this.
I supported last year. I met him at Wikimania. And I'm supporting again this year. My impression is that he's very likeable guy, that he's sensible and thoughtful, and that he has the tact to deal with the sort of sensitive situations that cross ArbCom's desk. He's an oversighter and a former arb clerk (one of the better members of a group I rarely find to be praise-worthy), so he has a good idea of what he's letting himself in for. I think he'd be good at the job and he might even enjoy it. He could become the sort of arb who plays a central role in the committee and earns huge respect for his work.
Yes, yes, pie is good. My favourite's apple. A little light-heartedness reminds us not take ourselves too seriously, but at the end of the day, this circus has a serious purpose.
Prolific article-writer but doesn't seem to have much experience behind the scenes. Wouldn't you be happier continuing to write articles rather than getting involved in meta (and meta-meta) aspects of the project? Update: No doubt about his willingness to serve, and he might well make a decent arb, but I've got nine candidates I'd sooner support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I've supported before, and I think he's come a long way since he first ran. He has since been appointed an oversighter, he has experience on OTRS, and he's served as an arb clerk (as if to demonstrate my point above about good clerks not drawing attention to themselves, I didn't know he was a clerk). "I don't necessarily see any reason to propose wholesale reforms of ArbCom" (from his statement) is a little underwhelming—I believe various reforms are needed for various reasons (see #Preamble)—but at the end of the day I think he'd do a decent job.
I'd have liked a more substantial statement, but I've seen nothing but good things from Phil. I thought he did a good job on ArbCom last time and I'm glad he's recovered enough to be willing to serve again. We've bumped into each other fairly frequently since he left the committee and I've found him to be an effective functionary and always willing to explain his train of thought and discuss differences of opinion rather than riding roughshod over other editors. I think it's a great pity, but Phil has withdrawn. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't always agree with him, and he tends to be a bit too legalistic, but he's certainly expanded my knowledge of Latin legal phrases! He's also this year's only returning arb, and I think we've had the sanest ArbCom for years this year.
Nice guy. Needs more experience and more exposure to the inner workings of Wikipedia but wouldn't be a total disaster in my opinion. He's had some issues in the past. He was indefinitely blocked last year for faffing over other peoples' signatures and unblocked on a last chance (see talk page discussion for context; he had his template editor rights revoked a few months ago resulting in a lengthy ANI thread which endorsed the action. Xeno's description of T13's style as "pushing his preferred version where there is no consensus or external desire for such changes" was very accurate. I think he's mellowed since then and started focusing on more useful things, where he is certainly an asset. Because of the mellowing, and the potential I see, I won't oppose, but others probably will.
Easiest decision I've made for a long time. I've worked very closely with him IRL, particularly in organising this year's Wikimania. He's much calmer and more level-headed than I am, and he'd be a much better arb. Okay, so he's a friend, but I'd still support him if I'd never met him. He's a long-term, dedicated Wikipedian; he's been an admin for over nine(!) years; he has a great deal of experience in various areas of the project. I know he's aware of what he's letting himself in for, and his statement makes a lot of sense (as have his comments on arbitration proceedings). I think he'd be very fair as an arbitrator of disputes, and has the temperament and experience to handle the various other things ArbCom is responsible for.
Not sure he really understands what ArbCom is all about; nothing in the statement addresses the non-public side of ArbCom's role. Don't really like the idea of submitting an RfA after getting elected to ArbCom, which sort of puts the community between a rock and a hard place, but at least it would be the same community that elected them. In a shallower pool, they might have a decent chance. He might even be a good arb. I appreciate the willingness to stick their head above the parapet, but the pool deepened at the last minute and I've got nine candidates I'd sooner support
Sane. What else is there to say? Hesitation in standing is a good thing—unlike most things on Wikipedia, ArbCom is a big deal, and shouldn't be entered into lightly. Has experience with ACC/OTRS/UTRS so has had a small taste of what ArbCom deals with. I'd like to see a statement with some sort of ambition for reform, but I suppose we can't expect too much of a would-be first-term arb. Going neutral because other candidates impressed me more. Certainly wouldn't be unhappy to see him elected but I'm only supporting nine (commensurate with the number of vacancies).
Disclaimers
The views offered here are mine; they are not intended to represent anybody else's. Make of them what you will. If you found this guide interesting or useful, so much the better, but life would be boring if we all agreed all the time, so I won't think any less of you should you choose to vote differently, or even if you disagree with me so passionately you feel the need to write your own guide!
This guide is not evidence of anything except my own opinions; it should not be used as evidence in dispute resolution (as a previous guide of mine recently was), nor should it be considered to reflect negatively on those whom I criticise—my thoughts here are on the candidates' suitability to sit on 2015's ArbCom; it is entirely possible to think somebody unsuitable for the role while greatly admiring their work elsewhere on Wikipedia and respecting them as a person.
Finally, I base this guide mostly on gut instinct; while I would never knowingly post something that was inaccurate, please don't rely on this as a substitute for your own research.
