 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
| These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
While not as active as before, I have continuously been observing the evolution of ArbCom. Ten years ago my feeling was that ArbCom was too harsh, often passing long bans in conflicts that could have been handled more surgically. Today I feel the pendulum has swinged too far the other way, with ArbCom often bending over backwards to accommodate people who have demonstrated serious misconduct. The result has been that too many cases have been closed with half-measured resolutions that allowed the conflict to continue. Thus, we have seen many case names with a "2" or "3" attached to them. Failing to remove the most disruptive elements from the community is a time sink that causes severe detriment to Wikipedia's development. As such my opinions here may tend to show slight favor towards "tougher" candidates. I believe that there is room for considerable leniency in ArbCom cases, but there needs to be a greater willingness to make sometimes painful decisions instead of granting concessions to highly disruptive conduct.
The votes are based on my impressions. Having looked at some of the other voter guides, I see that there are some candidates where I am going against the grain. Some of those whom I oppose may end up elected in which case I hope they take some of my concerns into consideration.
Links to the candidates pages are on the main election page.
Support Experienced administrator and ArbCom clerk. Don't know so much about his record with clerking, but as a closer of discussions he has an analytical approach that bodes well for ArbCom tenure. Support. Former arbitrator who had a slightly lenient streak, but with a consistently sensible approach.
Oppose On most issues, Drmies holds a friendly demeanor, and he has good intentions with what he is doing. However, Drmies is one of the main contributors to the mess that the ArbCom is dealing with right now in the AE2 case. In one incident, Drmies was one of the administrators who joined in harassing an administrator who enforced an ArbCom decision, telling him DS allows you to make your own decision, and thus in this case you were indeed free to wipe your ass with what the rest of us had to say. That is not the sort of attitude that belongs on ArbCom! Support. Gamaliel has in an excellent editorial for The Signpost identified a real and serious problem that affects much of the internet these days, and Wikipedia in particular. This is a candidate who I have had disagreements with in the past, but his eyes are open and the well-reasoned opinion will be good to have on ArbCom. Support. Current arbitrator who has suffered considerable harrassment and stood strong through it. Good judgement overall. Oppose. Former administrator who was desysopped in an old reincarnation of a case that has continued over years and where its current incarnation is being litigated right now. While I am sympathetic to many of Hawkeye7's frustrations, I believe he should ensure that he has the trust of the community before he runs for a postion on ArbCom. Support. Tendency for being harsh, but over the past year the ArbCom has tended to be too tolerant of personal attacks and other abusive behavior directed at fellow editors. Hullaballoo is among the candidates who I think can be trusted to redress that balance.
Neutral. Some years back I opposed Keilana's ArbCom bid over an incident where Keilana was willing to overlook blatantly abusinve sockpuppetry because the person in question had been friendly and helpful towards her. In general though I have a positive impression of Keilana. Her position on the case I opposed her over was the result of excessive leniency to the point of ignorance, but not a lack of integrity. If her approach today is less naive than those years ago, her presence may well be a welcome addition to the committee. Support. Level-headed administrator who answered the questions concisely, and who seems to approach the role of arbitrator in a cautious but no-nonsense manner. Neutral. Tended to be overly harsh as a new administrator, but has mellowed somewhat. In recent months I have tended to agree with his postings, but need to look further. Neutral. Former arbitrator who tended to be on the strict side. Party to the AE2 case that is going on now. I don't think he did anything wrong there, although I am left wondering if his course of action there was necessary. Oppose. Answers to the questions seem combative. Belligerent even. A pity, since Kudpung is one of the most experienced editors here, and I have usually found him to be on point. Support. Whether it is because he works mainly "behind the scenes" or because he prefers to simply state his opinion without pushing hard on it is to me unknown, but I find LFaraone as one of the more obscure and least controversial of the incumbent arbitrators. Looking at his record he rarely proposes things, but what he does do and say is also sensible and his presence on the committee is therefore an asset to it. Oppose. From what I can see, Mahensingha is a good contributor, but there is a lack of experience with managing conflicts. On the questions page, one of WTT's questions concerned the stress that arises from the continual conflicts that are thrown at ArbCom. Mahensingha responded, among other things with: "If someone intends to insult me it simply means that he/she failed to understand me and nothing more." This is a great assume good faith approach just about everywhere else on Wikipedia, but on ArbCom and in many of the conflicts that it sees, a lots of the insults are simply trollish editors trying to bully in order to get their way, and trying to excuse that as misunderstandings is too naive for a post on the committee. Oppose. Tended to agree with much of his commentary over the last months, but I have very grave concerns over the conduct listed in the block log. Support. Was a very seasoned voice of reason in some conflicts that I was partially involved in, partially observing, over the last year. NE Ent is not an admin, but he speaks with greater maturity than 90%+ of all the people on Wikipedia. Neutral. On Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Preliminary_statement_by_Opabinia_regalis|her statement on the AE2 she refers to the "frightened" quote by Kirill as being "self-serving". I, like Kirill, have observed (and experienced) massive backlash against any administrator who attempts to enforce sanctions or decisions on that case, and her response seems to ignore that completely. That lack of insight disturbs me. However, I do not oppose candidates because of their stance on a single issue, and in general Opabinia is an intelligent voice of reason. Oppose. I believe that Rich's approach will serve to undermine the authority ArbCom needs to have. His statement on the AE2 case indicates a belief that ArbCom should send back to the community a very messy conflict that it already has failed at resolving. Doing so would be a complete abdication of responsibility of ArbCom whose purpose is precisely to handle the hard cases. Support. One year arbitrator and an effective one at that. Calm but firm demeanor and sensible decision making. Other guides have opposed him for being bureaucratic, but that is not the kind of thing that has been slowing down ArbCom. I consider it proper to ensure that all formalities are taken care of in ArbCom issues where heavy-handed remedies are sometimes handed down. Oppose. I am sympathetic but ultimately skeptical to Timtrent's statement where he says "I believe in bringing an analytical and polite approach to every situation, coupled with a light hand." This is a very good approach for almost everything on Wikipedia, but it is a detriment on ArbCom. Unfortunately, cases that go to ArbCom frequently involve deep rooted conflict and sometimes very atrocious conduct where heavier means are needed to resolve them. There has been too much light handed approach from ArbCom this year, something that has allowed cases to bounce back since the well-intentioned resolutions have been easily gameable and not binding as they are supposed to be. Timtrent is an excellent editor, but the conflict resolution skills are untested. Neutral Not a candidate that I have heard of before this election. The candidate is not an administrator, nor do I see any experience within dispute resolution, but the answers display thoughtfulness and a good attitude nonetheless.