|
This voting guide
My recommendations are the following:
Within each category, the candidates are roughly ordered, beginning with the best. These within-category orderings are more uncertain than the between-category divisions.
I'll explain qualifications next, and later discuss the candidates individually with comments.
Concern for vulnerable persons. Publishing the formerly confidential emails of a vulnerable person was proposed, at least briefly, by one administrator, before he clarified his opposition. Clear and firm opposition to such disclosure is an important merit; Wikipedia has had too many suicides already.
In the Monty Hall problem case, some early decisions would have hobbled the mathematics project. I oppose candidates who behaved imprudently at the RfC of Badger Drink (or at my own RfC!).
ArbCom is a terrible job, so the volunteers should deserve some appreciation for their hard work. Many members quit, because of the work load and the bitching and moaning of the herd of independent minds called "the community".
Thus, good ArbCom experience is an important merit. Good experience elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia's mediation committee) is another great merit.
As a rule, new administrators should not be on ArbCom. There are no exceptions this year.
I have ignored the ArbComm mailing scandals, whose real scandals have been the theft of confidential correspondence and the WP community reading stolen confidential correspondence. Thus, my guide does not suggest "throw the bums out".... Rather, a quality ArbCom this year requires the re-election of most incumbent administrators, if only to block unqualified/mediocre candidates.
"Friend, though hast no business here", said the Quaker as he pushed back the pirate over the ship's railing"
I oppose WTT's election this year, with regrets, because he has (1) pushed poorly written bacon-articles onto the main page and (2) supported partisan RfCs (flawed with cherry-picked diffs, taken out of context) that have ignored others' misbehaviors.
1. WTT won the 2011 Bacon Cup by writing 4 DYKs and 2 GAs on bacon-topics. WTT's bacon-cup victory is not a merit for ArbCom, however:
2. In two RfC's, WTT and other enthusiasts from RfA Reform have behaved like U.S. prosecutors, cherry-picking diffs to establish guilt, neglecting the principle of fairness, "it's important that comments are taken in context", written by ArbCom member Casliber, in an RfC.
Details
| |||
---|---|---|---|
|
The community has observed ArbCom for many years. When ArbCom members walk among us, we don't want them to brandish (or swing) their ArbCom billy-clubs, with possible partisanship---the appearance of which concerned ArbCom member Casliber in Badger Drink's RfC/U.
Discussion of BLT this week
|
---|
His candidacy faces my opposition this year. Let us wish that WTT shall earn our support for the next election. |
I was somewhat concerned by the bad block of Malleus F. The diffs given by NW and SandyGeorgia convinced me to oppose.
Meshegas fun der goyim: Accusing an editor of racism, Pandyd ignored the long ANI discussion on "goyim"
|
---|
Badger Drink's edit summary included a funny summary, "only a truly befuddled, naive goyim would present something so condescending as fact", which was denounced as "racism" in a "case" at ANI, which was laughed at. Nonetheless,
A fair outside-view and dismissal of the "racism" charge was given by editor Cardamon. After quote[edit]The ironic & humorous use of "a goyim" was discussed at ANI with mind-numbing/numbed exhaustiveness. The fatuity of this "RfC/U Outside view", disregarding the ANI discussion, suggests that the Panyd and the signatories failed to read examine the diff of the "goyim" joke or the diffs where Badger Drink replied at ANI. Anybody who would write (or support) such a fatuous rant, accusing an editor of racism after the ANI discussion, is unfit to serve on ArbCom. |
Nobody supports these candidates and most oppose them.
With too many seats and too many candidates, this election may give first-time voters headaches. Be not afraid! Three angelic editors have provided guides to the guiders, to which I and User:Volunteer Marek guide you:
This guide discusses itself and Volunteer Marek's guide, and may well be the first meta-recursive guide in Wikipedia election history. Volunteer Marek's meta-guide discusses only other guides to guides
|