2008 Arbitration Committee Elections • General Guide • Voting is now closed, and the final results were announced on December 20. v t e Wikipedia Signpost Candidate Profiles • Individuals' guides: AGK • Caspian blue (meta) • CT Cooper • east718 • Elonka • Franamax • Giggy • GlassCobra • Lar • Majorly • MBisanz • MZMcBride • PhilKnight • Rschen7754 • Rspeer • SandyGeorgia • Shot info

This is my voter guide, in progress. I've now examined every candidate's background, statement, and questions at least once, but for some candidates I have to wait until they answer more questions before making a decision.

The table below shows only candidates who are admins already. It's exceedingly unlikely that a candidate who hasn't passed RfA yet would win in the ArbCom election. When it comes to non-admins, I will oppose some and abstain on the rest.

The following are the big issues for me:

• Making ArbCom effective without them being mad with power. In 2005, an ArbCom case wasn't over until somebody got banned. In 2008, it wasn't over until... well, basically ever. I'm looking for candidates who will be able to find the happy medium, being prepared to hand down decisions that are both swift and appropriate.
• Keeping in mind Wikipedia's educational purpose. The ArbCom will have to face big cases where scientific consensus conflicts with widespread beliefs. I feel that recent ArbComs have been rather wussy about promoting scientific knowledge on Wikipedia. In particular, the Paranormal case of 2007 was a significant step back from the Pseudoscience case of 2006. ArbCom tends to feel that the "NPOV" thing to do is to carve out niches for both science and silliness, or to declare the core of the conflict to be an irrelevant "content decision".
  I do not want this false equivalence to remain. I do not want a "three-layer cake with frosting" where one of the layers is made of bullshit. Wikipedia has a responsibility to give its readers the most accurate possible understanding of the world. To this end, I've asked all candidates on this list a question about science and NPOV.

Now, just appearing responsible and fair and saying positive things about science doesn't necessarily get a candidate my endorsement. The most effective approval voting ballot is one that gives an equal number of supports and opposes to the viable candidates, and I aim to at least approximate that, despite that we have many good candidates this year. This puts me in the position where I will have to oppose some very qualified and respected Wikipedians just because I don't support them enough. Try not to take it too personally, candidates.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(Thanks to User:AGK for the convenient table and templates.)

Bonus section: Rspeer's voter guide guide guide

or: Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Meta