User:Rschen7754/ACE2014
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Previous guides: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
Standard disclaimer: This represents my views and opinions, especially on Wikipedia philosophy. I encourage you to do your own research.
Background
[edit]A bit about myself: editor since 2005, admin since 2005. I am a contributor to the U.S. Roads project and have 7 FAs and 20 GAs. I have been following virtually all the 2012/2013/2014 ArbCom cases, and have been an official party to three cases (all before 2012). I have also commented on quite a few others. I have some user rights elsewhere, and am a m:Steward for the 2013-2014 term. I served as an arbitration clerk for almost a year, but was unable to continue due to an inability to remain active in all my roles on Wikimedia.
How this guide works
[edit]I didn't really write a guide in 2007, but have written a guide every year since 2008, so this is guide number 7. I wasn't entirely sure that I wanted to write a guide this year, due to it getting a bit old, and due to my decreased availability on Wikimedia over the last several months.
But each year I see plenty of bad guides (which shall not be named) that encourage people to vote certain ways for poor reasons. I figure that while I've never served on the Committee or as an enwiki functionary (and am happy with that), I've been around long enough and have served in other roles to where I have enough knowledge of most of the prospective candidates, have followed most of ArbCom's (public) forays, and have knowledge of relevant Wikimedia-wide policies and norms from my work as a steward, to the point where my opinions might be helpful. So I figured that I'd give it a go this year.
Serving as a steward has given me a different perspective on what makes a good arbitrator. The roles are quite different: stewards are closer to being clerks than arbitrators, since they are bound by community consensus. But it has given me a good perspective on wiki-team dynamics, as well as a lot of the issues related to serving as a functionary on Wikimedia.
As such, I've eliminated the quantitative scoring entirely this year, and am asking an entirely new set of questions to reflect this shift in perspective, and also to decrease the amount of time it takes to write this guide.
Questions
[edit]The questions are at User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2014; since there's no rubric this year, there's no point scale posted here.
Experience
[edit]Again, no points, but here is the stuff that I look for when looking at experience.
- Does the editor have a FA/GA?
- Have they been a Wikipedia editor for a decent length of time and made a proportionate amount of edits during that time?
- Are they an administrator? How long? Have they been sanctioned, desysopped, admonished?
- Have they participated in a formal committee that will give you experience in ArbCom?
- For example, ArbCom, Bureaucrat, CheckUser, oversighter, steward, AUSC, ArbCom clerk, ArbCom-appointed groups, MedCom, Ombudsman Commission, Language Committee, OTRS admin, WMF staff/contracting, OTRS, SPI clerk, CCI clerk, featured content process delegate, MILHIST coordinator, lawyer, BAG, CU/OS on other wiki, ArbCom on other wiki, global sysop
- For former roles, how did the role end?
- Was the statement well thought out (why are they running)? Was it reasonable and not a "let's go sack ArbCom" statement?
- Any visible problems such as RFC or ArbCom, bad block log, sock issues?
- Any obvious problems with demeanor (contribution check or from anything I can recall)?
Results
[edit]I will list editors in alphabetical order. Any initial comments are simply that; if you wow me with your answers to the questions, that can make a huge difference.
Recommendations are solely for suitability in a possible role as an arbitrator. Please don't take this personally!
| Editor | Thoughts | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Calidum (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Not an admin. Ran as Hot Stop in 2011, got a very low percentage.
I have nothing against non-admin candidates. But I expect that they have the same temperament as admins are expected to have, and a similar amount of experience. I don't see either here. At least this time around he's admitting his faults, as compared to his 2011 statement "Yes, I realize I was recently blocked. But I was blocked for calling a spade a spade." |
 Strong Oppose
|
| Courcelles (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Was an arb 2012-2013.
Well, I knew I would be supporting based on what I saw from him as an arbitrator: easy to work with, and willing to vote how he thought best for the encyclopedia, regardless of if it would be popular. Admittedly, I suspect that his consistent votes for banning editors may have turned some people off, but in reality a good Arbitration Committee needs people of both the "lenient" and "strict" viewpoint, to have a more moderate approach overall. He is also an experienced functionary, which is helpful experience for both handling functionary team matters as well as knowing how to use the tools. My only reservation is that I fear his activity on other wikis will probably suffer (as it did in 2014), and that he might lose some of his flags as a result of stricter inactivity policies on sister projects. |
 Strong support
|
| DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Long-term CU. Ran in 2011, got around 33%.
As an enwiki CU, and one of the most active, I think he knows what he is getting into. As far as the stuff I mentioned above, yes, an ArbCom composed of 15 DeltaQuads would be a bad thing. But being on a committee of 14 other people where any one of them can (and likely do) speak out (as opposed to the functionaries team, where the people who actually read their emails are the ones deciding things) would probably be okay; usually arbs don't act on their own initiative anyway. That plus the weak candidate field, where I would rather have someone who knows to keep stuff private and knows how to work with other people on the committee than someone who can't. So, support, though it's weak. |
 Weak support
|
| DGG (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Admin, but focuses mostly on content issues.
I guess I was a bit surprised to see DGG running for the Committee. When I've interacted with him in various (usually content-related) arenas it's usually been positive, though I haven't always agreed with him. I suspect that his skills might be more useful in some of the more recent cases (i.e. Argentine History, Tea Party movement, etc.) where much of the problems relate to NPOV, BLP, RS/OR issues and the like. Sure, I think that some parts may be outside his area of expertise (i.e. dealing with some of the nastier stuff ArbCom faces, and handling functionary matters), but the positives outweigh the negatives. |
 Support
|
| Dougweller (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Former Arb clerk.
The bad thing about not using points this year is trying to come up with a decision on candidates that you are not familiar with. That's the case for Dougweller; I can't really find anything to latch onto. He served as an arb clerk, but it was almost three years ago. His RFA was unanimous, so that at least says something. Reading through the questions doesn't give me much to go off either. I can't find anything bad either, and he's served as a long-term admin and as a clerk knows what ArbCom does, so that'll at least push me to weak support. |
Weak support
|
| Dusti (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
I have a bad feeling about this candidacy, but I'll keep my mouth shut until after the questions are answered. (Yes, I meant to duplicate the comment below... not a good sign, really).
|
Strong Oppose
|
| Euryalus (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Admin.
I think the good content experience, good collaborative experience (especially in some somewhat contentious areas), and reasonable viewpoints will help in being an arb. The only weakness I can see is a relative lack of dealing with the "tougher" issues onwiki. |
Support
|
| Geni (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Admin, but there's some drama from the last decade that I need to look into again.
I'm not going to go into details here, but I feel there's a bit of a mismatch in terms of communication and interaction style, and thus I have to oppose. While he may be well-respected, I just don't think this role is a good fit for him. |
 Oppose
|
| Guerillero (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Former AUSC, current OS.
I guess I don't have much more to say that I haven't in past years, so here's my comments from 2013:
|
Support
|
| Hahc21 (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Recent admin, current clerk.
From reading his RFA in March 2014, and from looking at his past record (where he was a bit overeager and where concerns were raised about his judgment), one would expect him to be the subject of several ANI discussions. The relative silence since then indicates to me that he's starting to mellow out. But ugh. While he is a nice guy, and he may be ready someday, I don't think he's quite ready now, and I wish he had waited a year or two before running. That being said, I don't think he would damage the Committee, so going neutral. |
 Neutral
|
| Isarra (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Not an admin. Ran last year on an... interesting platform.
My comments from 2013:
The candidacy is largely the same, except a different theme. My issue with it is that the first time it was funny, the second time the humor has worn off. |
 Weak Oppose
|
| Kraxler (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Ran last year, and wasn't too impressed, but we'll see what this year is like.
Well, his candidacy is better than last year. That being said, I feel that he prepared by reading arbitration cases, which is great, but doesn't gain experience in the "trenches" by resolving disputes, commenting on noticeboards, etc. [Insert standard comment about non-admin candidates that is repeated elsewhere on this guide] |
Oppose
|
| Ks0stm (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. OS, current arb clerk. A bit of activity concerns.
Well, having read through his answers to the questions this year, his candidacy is better than it was last year. However, his activity has not been so good. I feel that he would give the Committee his best efforts, but then that's working from my conversations with the candidate. However, I fear that he probably won't make it again since the voters will think his candidacy is too bland though, and because of the activity... but I trust him, at least, pushing me over to a weak support. |
Weak support
|
| PhilKnight (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Former arb from the early 2010s.
Well, he hasn't answered the questions (or really edited since he posted his candidacy). That being said, he's generally been active (and I somehow missed that he's been taking care of lots of CU/OS backlogs) and we know how he would perform as an arb since he was one, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I'll try and look at the questions if he gets to them in time though. |
Support
|
| Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Current arb running for reelection.
Generally, all my interactions with Salvio have been positive. My impression of him as an arbitrator is someone who is willing to take the harder line when necessary, but does not pile-on with the majority, and who is willing to explain their reasoning. I suppose I'll probably disagree with his viewpoints at times should he be re-elected, but there's more to being a good arbitrator than "always agreeing with Rschen7754". |
Strong support
|
| Stanistani (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. I feel that his role in Wikipediocracy will make or break his candidacy, but we'll see how he handles it.
Well, let's be a bit blunt: this candidate understands the fundamental issues Wikipedia faces a lot more than some of the other candidates with a much higher edit count. I think he has the right motives, as well. And I suppose I'll have to address the Wikipediocracy business now then. Back in the days when I read the site (nowadays it just raises my blood pressure, so I don't even bother), I found Zoloft to be fairly reasonable, and doing some digging around through the Wikimedia contributions I can find supports that. As far as the privacy business, I think it would probably be okay (one CU/OS holder on this site is heavily involved over there and somehow manages), but well, as the voter, that is something that you have to decide and come to terms with for yourself. But for me, the deciding factor is the lack of edits and experience. Yes, I get that he comments about Wikipedia on another site, but that can't replace the experience of editing, writing quality articles, resolving disputes, etc. that one has to get by doing it themselves. Sure, it might make a difference if he had 8,000 or 10,000 contributions, but there's no way I can support with this few. So I have to go for Oppose for now, though I might be willing to reconsider with more experience. And there are worse candidates, I feel. |
Oppose
|
| Technical 13 (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
I have a bad feeling about this candidacy, but I'll keep my mouth shut until after the questions are answered.
Disclosure: I've had several conversations with Technical 13. And I guess I'll start from there. Most of my conversations stemmed from noticing an unusually high number of failed rights requests, and an unusual interest in rights, across Wikimedia, as noted above. I won't bore you with the various legalities of why the rights requests don't show how he is theoretically qualified for the rights, but there's an awful lot of them. It is true that he has a good breadth of technical skills. However, I feel that he has difficulties interacting with other editors in contentious matters, and that he does not realize the importance of this ability and thinks that his technical ability overcomes all. Across Wikimedia, it is my firm belief that both collaboration skills and technical/writing ability are what are needed to be successful on Wikimedia, no matter what the role. I am sure that others will mention his block log and the signature stuff in their guides, so I won't bring that up here. From reading his answers to Elonka's question, where he semi-spontaneously decided to run for ArbCom, I get the feeling that this is another one of these occurrences. I don't get the feeling that he knows what he is getting into, provided that he won, of course. Thus, I feel really bad about this, but I have to oppose rather strongly. |
Strong Oppose
|
| Thryduulf (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Admin. A bit outspoken on recent Wikimedia issues but I have to re-read the specifics.
Well, the candidate has good qualifications on paper, but my gut's telling me no. I'll disclose that I was in a dispute with him several years ago, and my impression then (as it is now) is that he was a bit difficult to work with; a compromise attempt was unsuccessful. That being said, I had forgotten about it until I did more research. The clincher for me though: I'm also a bit disturbed by their statements relating to Wikimedia Commons. While I agree that Commons has some problems, like other Wikimedia communities, comments like [5], "neutral notifications" like [6], and [7] really rub me the wrong way as a Wikimedia editor who just wants all the projects to get along. Heck, he even mentioned Commons in the answers to the desysopping question. I'd rather not have an arbitrator who says combative stuff about another Wikimedia project, and I wonder if there are other temperament concerns as well. |
Oppose
|
| Wbm1058 (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. Not an admin.
Well, his positions are okay, but I fear that they do not have enough experience for the role. They might have a good chance at running for admin with some work in the right areas (granted: this is not an endorsement, I didn't do that thorough of a check), though I can predict several opposes based on little content experience. |
Oppose
|
| Yunshui (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Awaiting answers to questions. (Trainee) SPI clerk, but fairly inactive there.
I'm leaning support with this one. So far, it seems like he has the right attitude going into this, and a good breadth of experience with both content creation and administrative-type work. My hesitation is in seeing his low ACC and SPI activity; how will 2 years of being an arb affect his activity levels? I'll probably wait until the entire candidate field is present before going one way or another, but so far in a weak field, this looks like one of the more promising candidates. Going to go with weak support for now, but might be adjusted depending on the others. |
Weak support
|
