User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012
 |
|
2012 environment
[edit]There are eight seats to be filled this year to complete an Arbitration Committee of 15. There are not eight candidates on the list that I am comfortable with. We have a low bar set for admission to the Arbitration Committee (50% support, with abstains not counted), so I advocate that voters make ample use of the Oppose button as that is the only means of preventing lesser quality candidates from being appointed. I believe that the committee is often hamstrung when 15 members are unable to come to any agreement and intractable problems are left unresolved and thrown back upon the community; we've seen that too many times this year, with ArbCom failing to act, or failing to act on the obvious, with issues finally being dealt with by the community but only after prolonged disruption.
Each year, different arb cases highlight problems in the makeup of the committee. In 2012, a particular problem was pervasive, touching far too many productive editors and involving a good number of the candidates in this year's election. This has been the year of the Supporters of Socks and Deceptive Returning Users, breaching clean start or right to vanish to continue visiting old grudges. ArbCom's failure to deal with or address community questions and concerns about long-term socking and editors returning under new accounts, combined with a trend of leniency towards users who cause long-term disruption and an inability to make decisions, left intractable problems unaddressed. ArbCom failed to act when approached several times by multiple editors when returning users were clearly disrupting, taunting and poking. Worse, the committee appears to be divided, [1] unable to arbitrate, unable to distinguish between a productive editor supported by multiple RFCs doing what he perceives as his job and disruptive deceptive editors waging a battleground over old grudges. Leniency and inaction on the part of arbs towards Users Who Deceive under New or Multiple Accounts to Revisit Old Grudges will be one of my main concerns in this year's election.
Another concern that guides some of my opposes is that there is a difference between mediation and arbitration, requiring different skill sets. Mediators don’t necessarily make good arbitrators, as the skillsets are sometimes mutually exclusive (reaching compromise and seeing all viewpoints versus making tough decisions to ban difficult users). I’ll be opposing mediator-types who may be soft on disruption and unwilling to make tough calls to ban.
My past arb elections guides and disclosures
[edit]This years’s RFC encourages disclosures by guidewriters, so at the risk of Too Much Information: I was involved for six years in every aspect of the Featured content processes, and follow issues that impact Wikipedia's ability to attract and retain top-notch editors and to produce and feature quality content. I was the delegate at Featured article candidates (FAC) for four years, resigning in February 2012 so I could focus more on my area of editing interest (medical articles) after Wikimedia Foundation efforts furthered programs that have caused deterioration in the quality of Wikipedia's medical content.
Past involvement with the Arbitration Committee: I have been party to or provided evidence on four cases that involved (in every case) either desysopped or sanctioned admins (abusive would be an understatement), and site banned or indef blocked sockmasters and disruptive editors. In all four cases, reason eventually prevailed, but it took much too long, took too much time away from other more productive editing, and there was too much collateral damage. I have been in the unfortunate position four times of seeing the consequences when the arbs fail to act quickly enough in cases of clear abuse, deception and disruption, how they sometimes fail to acknowledge what is well known out here "in the trenches", and how detrimental the effect on the community can be. I trust that the arbs eventually get it right, but it shouldn't be so hard or so time-consuming on the regular editor in the trenches. These experiences inform my positions and guide my voting.
Arbcom e-mail leaks disclosure [2] (since some candidates are asking for this): I had no access to the emails leaked by current arb and candidate Elen of the Roads and I had no insider knowledge of the issue. Some of my statements written here before the leak was revealed predicted such problems, but only because case deliberations have made it so abundantly obvious that we had a seriously divided Committee and because character issues were becoming apparent. For such reasons, I will not support candidates who haven't served as admins for quite a while, and I will not support candidates who don't adhere to strict transparency standards and engage in off-Wiki correspondence about confidential matters.
Additional background disclosure and relevant links: In the midst of the orderly formulation of a broad RFC after I initiated discussion in the New Year 2012 as promised earlier (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55), and before it was known that User:Alarbus was a Jack Merridew/Davenbelle sock or that PumpkinSky was returning user Rlevse, [3] Wehwalt launched an impromptu RFC here, TCO launched a second impromptu RFC here, a third RFC was launched somewhere that I can no longer find, and the widely advertised Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership was finally launched and closed in mid-February 2012. The conclusions were definitive in every RFC, yet taunting, poking and pointiness aimed at FAC leadership continued and escalated over the summer, and spread across many pages and many discussions. Questions arise when ElenoftheRoads redefines previous sanctions in place against an already sanctioned sockmaster, [4] who lodges personal attacks on the arb page [5] and taunts on his talk page,[6] that are unaddressed by any admin or arb. He continues editing. The sockmaster was welcomed back under yet another account by an arb, [7] leading me to state at ANI that the issue should be pushed up to the arbs, to deal with the socking and returning user issues. [8] Continued taunts resulted in a denied request for arbitration about the Featured article process, which was before the community took matters into its own hands in the community ban of Merridew/Alarbus/Davenbelle/B'rer Rabbit et al.
Another case frequently referenced in the candidate questions is the Clarification request: Civility enforcement.
- 2011
- No candidate I opposed in 2011 was elected, all candidates I supported were elected. I abstained on three candidates who were elected, and have seen unfortunate input from those three on 2012 cases, solidifying my view that if you are in the least unsure of a candidate, Oppose is the best option. This guide reflects my opinions only: why should you care which past guides predicted success? You decide if they reflect a guidewriter who keeps close tabs on issues of concern to the community, understands how the positions of various candidates impact the community, or notices what kinds of skills the community perceives are needed to balance deficits on the committee.
- 2010
- This was a particularly bad year; a recent RFC had grown the size of the committee (to 18), and there were not enough top-notch candidates to fill the 12 openings. The 2010 election was an exercise in choosing the least worst of the pool to fill a larger committee. According to Lar's post-election analysis of the 2010 guides, my guide best predicted successful candidates (see analysis by Lar posted at the bottom of my guide page). Some of those elected in 2010 were disappointing in key 2012 cases. After re-evaluating 2010 and 2011 results, I no longer support candidates for whom we don’t have a long enough track record to have a sense of how they would conduct themselves as arbs, and I advocate that a smaller, more qualified committee will be more effective than a larger committee that is hamstrung by indecision and fractious voting.
- 2009
- 2008
Support
[edit]Definite support
[edit]He's a good arb; he will be re-elected. He's not soft on disrupters; he does recuse when he must. So, I'll take this opportunity to mention one thing to NYB, since this issue was raised in one of the key cases discussed above: IMO, you are too soft on some RFA candidates, supporting often, which leads to concern that you still may not realize how discouraging this double standard is to so many editors. A Support !vote at RFA should be even more important than a Support declaration at FAC. If we saw more concern wrt !votes at RFA, we just might see fewer intractable problems appearing before the arbs.
A solid editor who I have interacted with and observed for many years, values top content contributions, believes in strong sourcing, understands medical sourcing, long involved in multiple aspects of dispute resolution, understands arb processes, committed to Wikipedia, unlikely to burn out. As the last year saw an inability of the committee to stand up for content and to disruption, NW will be an asset and balance out current committee deficits.
Here’s a candidate—like SilkTork last year—folks probably expect me to oppose considering the years of torture the community endured over the Mattisse affair. He gives a comprehensive and thoughtful answer on a difficult issue: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/RegentsPark/Questions#Question from SandyGeorgia. RegentsPark had me at the end of the first paragraph, which should be required reading for some other candidates and arbs who haven't had similar lightbulb moments about the effect on the community of editors who use new and deceptive accounts to revisit grudges (particularly those candidates who are relying on their own personal interactions and are blind to the larger destruction that socks and deceptive returning users can wreak upon the larger community). We don't see this kind of understanding from some other candidates who have come up through mediation circles and have developed a lenient attitude towards disruption, or some current arbs who apparently are unable to see the distinction between an editor supported by RFC and doing his job, and a prolific sockmaster with an old grudge, joined by a small group of disaffected editors to taunt, poke, breach, and create a battleground. If the best the Arb committee can do in such cases is suggest an interaction ban between an obviously good faith editor doing his job, and an obvious sockmaster disrupting, those arbs can learn from RegentsPark, who was on the embarrassing end of having supported a user who in the end had low regard for some basic principles of collaborative editing on Wikipedia.
RegentsPark has been around for a long time, his commitment and longevity is evident, we can see how he acts under fire, and we have enough information to know where he stands on issues. RegentsPark's input on the other divisive issue of 2012 (Malleus and RFA, where again the arbs couldn't seem to get their collective house in order) was good.
Enough is enough. While the arb committee couldn't see the forest for the trees, and wouldn't act even when a previously sanctioned sock continued disruptive socking, and one arb welcomed the sockmaster "with love", T Canens did something, took it to the community, and did it well enough that it stuck. It is concerning that such a simple matter so thoroughly escaped the committee that is elected to deal with such intractable long-standing editors, particularly when previous sanctions were in place.
- A response to an off-topic post elsewhere from Wehwalt is at User talk:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012#Response to Wehwalt.
Likely support
[edit]Carcharoth has ample experience with both content contributions and dispute resolution. Although I'm unable to locate the diff any more, I believe he did wade into the fray during the sock attack on FAC to ask one of the participants to knock it off. I have no doubts about Carcharoth's commitment to Wikipedia or his good intentions and good faith; that said, before he was an arb, I had run-ins with him over his tendency to jump in to disputes or offer opinions without adequately investigating issues, and a frustrating tendency towards verbosity and missing the forest for the trees. I would have opposed him at least for concern that his verbosity was or could be a drag on other committee members, making Committee work difficult. It was this post from Newyorkbrad that led me to potentially support Carcharoth. So, committee, if he is elected and he doesn't investigate cases well and he is verbose and he sometimes misses the forest for the trees and you are all pulling your hair out ... well, look to NYB on that score. I trust that NYB had good reasons for asking Carcharoth to re-run (and I suspect that is because of a “devil known versus the devil unknown” factor and because we had in 2012 a committee so divided that it was unable to act on important cases). Subsequent events make it apparent that the committee is in dire need of honest candidates, and Carcharoth is that.
Fuchs is a content contributor and values content builders. During the attacks on FAC in 2012, he asked some of the participants to stop—which is more than we got from any single sitting arb, when the committee was apparently unable to distinguish an editor supported by four RFCs and empowered to do his job versus taunting pointy battleground behavior from users hiding behind new identities and socks. On the other hand, his initial stance on the Clarification request: Civility enforcement was problematic. On the other other hand, it wasn't as problematic as Sir Fozzie's, who held to that position in the Second Motion. I've seen concerns about recent inactivity, but David says that after a job change, move, and family death, things have settled down.
- For the same reasons that I regretfully moved to Oppose on Beeblebrox, I am moving Fuchs to Likely support. Recent events make it necessary to appoint arbs who will calm the waters left from a 2012 Committee characterized by hotheads and hysterics. I understand there was concern about Fuchs's recent level of activity, but accept that most of his work was behind the scenes and he had a number of personal life events that slowed him down and that those issues have now resolved. More importantly, I edited closely with Fuchs for years and years at FAC, and if there is one thing I know about him, it is that he is calm and not prone to hysterics. I also had years of knowing which FA participants were too quick to email me over every little grievance, taking issues off-Wiki, violating transperancy, and Fuchs wasn't one of those. One guidewriter characterized him as a follower and not a leader: I'd say instead that we don't need any more inflated egos trying to be chiefs and compounding the problems that have become apparent in recent events. I support Fuchs because with calmer arbs like Cas liber departing, and some likely appointees who will not bring calm experience, we need this kind of arb to balance the Committtee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
[edit]Strong oppose
[edit]Elen of the Roads (EotR) breaches ArbCom confidentiality to discuss another candidate with a third candidate, and weasels when caught. Is there no shame? [9]
As a sitting arb, EotR addresses herself to other editors in language that is not only offensive to persons with neurological differences, but would result in a block for most editors:
However, it appears that like everyone ele who runs bots (remember I'm on a committee with Xeno and Coren) you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum.[10]
She eventually issues a semi-apology, [11] but not before adding another insult;
Do you want your rattle back yet?
an implied threat related to her status as an arb;
... in the hope that you would be more intelligent than a certain other editor whose case I have shortly to go and write up ...
and another attack on editors who write bots;
For some reason, every chap with a bot has to make a blamed nuisance of themselves ...
These comments would result in arb sanctions for any other editor. Curiously, her feigned apology attempts to pass off the attack as a failed attempt at humor, yet she had already acknowledged it as the "sharp edge of my tongue", in a post again referencing neurological differences (compulsion). Does EotR really think that insulting people with autism and OCD is not a personal attack? In the followup, Elen of the Roads further abused her status as a sitting arb and misused her admin tools, resulting in a reminder from her fellow arbs: a sitting arb becoming party to an arb case in which she blocked an editor in spite of her involvement.
EotR was appointed in the dismal elections of 2010, where there were not enough top-notch candidates. She wasn't a top content contributor, she was a relatively new admin, and we didn't know enough about her to know how she would arbitrate, but the pool was so shallow and the committee had just grown to 18, so at that time, she looked to be among the better candidates available. History reveals how that worked out.
EotR has done some good work, but in the long disruption endured at the hands of a sockmaster revisiting an old grudge at FAC and TFAR, her actions as an arb were less than ideal. See the preamble on 2012 environment at the top of this guide, and the discussion and diffs in the section below (Candidate Keilana). After frustrating attempts to get answers or attention from the arbs about the socking, cleanstart, and RTV issues that were causing disruption at FAC, Elen of the Roads welcomed a returning sockmaster and yet did not recuse from a case involving that sockmaster's actions at FAC (one wonders what her relationship is to that now banned sockmaster that would lead her to welcome another account from him with "love"). [12] It's hard to tell if the arbs just couldn't follow the complexities of the situation, [13] or if they/she had some insider reason for not dealing with Davenbelle/Merridew/Alarbus/B'rer Rabbit and his many other socks, but Elen of the Road's welcome back with Wikilove of a returning sock-- who had wikihounded and socked many times while already under sanction and told to stick to one account-- and at a time where the rest of us couldn't get answers, gives great pause. The arbs would not and did not deal with this situation: the community finally banned Merridew/Davenbelle. We need arbs who understand and respect content contributors, and won't leave productive Wikipedians and processes dangling in the wind at the mercy of socks, disruptive users, and editors breaching cleanstart and right to vanish to revisit old grudges.
Followup questions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Elen of the Roads/Questions#Question from Gimmetoo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is one of my two strongest opposes—one of great concern. Keilana strikes me as one of those editors who, after spending too much time in mediation circles, develops a leniency towards editors who contribute to a battleground and a tendency towards supporting disruption and deception without understanding the impact on the community; I often see this among editors who spend a good deal of their editing time in mediation circles. Contrast Keilana's stances on deceptive returning editors and sockmasters with the positions taken by candidates RegentsPark and Timotheus Canens; I most strongly hope she is not elected, but if she is, she would be well advised to review their positions and experience, and consider how her self-serving position with respect to editors returning under different accounts to re-visit old grudges impact the broader community. The kind of leniency Keilana endorses-- indeed the kind of editors she supports-- make her the least desirable candidate this year for ArbCom.
As background and disclosure, I don't believe I've ever been part of any dispute with Keilana (I was FAC delegate when some very difficult, long, and ill-prepared FACs from a group she was part of went through, but there was no dispute; it was once common for the FA community to pull ill-prepared FACs through to FA standards by re-writing articles while they were at FAC). Because Keilana has made strong statements in support of two users who visited lengthy disruption upon FAC and TFAR, and those statements call into question her fitness to serve as an arb, unfortunately some old history must be revisited to demonstrate the problems in her representations. I did not opine in either of the discussions where Keilana supported two editors who had disrupted FAC (the Merridew ban or PumpkinSky RFA) although I did opine during the leadup to the RFCs on both.
Before the community ban of sockmaster Jack Merridew/Alarbus/Davenbelle/B'rer Rabbit, et al, for reasons unknown, the arbs failed to take action wrt this previously sanctioned sockmaster,[14] but finally the community did speak conclusively wrt this editor supported by Keilana. In the community ban, Keilana was among the minority, stating emphatically
A bad day or two? He socked for years, and the disruption at FAC and TFAR lasted at least a year and took many editor hours through multiple RFCs furthered by a small handful led by him and two others. "A net loss" after the time that he and a small group took on four RFCs where they did not prevail? Here we have an arb candidate defending—because of self-interest (he helped her with "technical" issues) one of Wikipedia's long-standing and prolific sockpuppets, who had already been sanctioned and admonished by the arbs and CUs to stick to one account, whose "technical" expertise was documented numerous times as forcing his preferred citation style upon other users, and who was revisiting as a sock an old grudge upon the Featured article process and its director. (Merridew as Davenbelle had been previously admonished by ArbCom when the FA director, Raul654, was an arb. Diff. Prior to Raul654's input on the case, it appeared that Davenbelle would escape sanction.) I would be interested in hearing Keilana's take on one vote from Newyorkbrad way back in 2008 for gosh sakes, see No. 6, describing another wikihounding scenario, and concluding with "We can accept nothing less than the complete avoidance of any conduct that could reasonably be perceived as harassment of White Cat or any other user, now and permanently." Four years ago.
One case of supporting a sock is bad enough; Keilana goes on to support another editor who breached Clean start and right to vanish, and also visited a past grudge upon FAC. These two editors joined with a very small handful (less than six) of other editors to try to force a change in leadership at FAC, but because their previous identities and grudges weren't known, disruption was prolonged until the community finally spoke up on both (Davenbelle/Merridew/Alarbus via community ban, and Rlevse/PumpkinSky has not edited since his RFA failed.) See Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership, one of four RFCs where this very small group brought RFC after RFC yet failed to prevail.
Arbs are called upon to analyze Wikipedia's most complex and protracted disputes, where careful investigative skills are necessary. In terms of how well she investigates or how correctly she understands and represents a serious issue, we have her co-nomination at the failed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PumpkinSky#Co-nomination by Keilana—replete with misstatements or a failure to understand the severity of concerns that led the community to reject this RFA candidate. Anyone is entitled to their opinion as to whether a user can be trusted with the tools, and nomination statements are often "glowing", but when an editor aspires to serve as an arb, we hold them to a high standard of integrity, understanding of policy and disputes, and investigative ability. The Rlevse issue has been mistakenly conflated to being about socking or being about copyvio: it is about abuse of trust, and editing deceptively as a returning user under a new account to visit an old grudge on FAC. Some of the misstatements in Keilana's failed co-nomination of Rlevse for RFA:
- "... one of the most prolific all-around users."
- Seriously? Rlevse was most prolific at DYK, which is well known for copyvio issues, spawning serial copyviolaters, and the likely source of Rlevse's intial copyvio problems. He helped further that culture, and defended it. It was Rlevse's outbursts at DYK and repeated defense of copyvio and plagiarism at DYK that got him into trouble to begin with and led to the discovery of his copyvio at FA. See the entire saga, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, where Rlevse's feedback included gems like: "I just told the jaw flapping malcontent exactly what I think. Now I'm ignoring them. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)"
- "... both ensuing CCIs (contributor copyright investigation) looked at every edit of his and didn't find much of anything."
- Although this meme has taken hold in many discussions about Rlevse/PumpkinSky, it misrepresents and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what copyvio is or how serious it is. It was not just a few sentences-- it was copy-paste, and it revealed that copy pasting and then altering a few words was Rlevse's editing style, and once the copyvio was cleaned out of Grace Sherwood, the FA star could not be saved—the article was defeatured at FAR (and a good deal of wasted editor time could have been saved if Rlevse had not absented the premises). Whether Rlevse should have run off when his copyvio was discovered is another matter—I don't think copyvio means he can't be trusted, but neither do I think we can trust as an arb someone who so glosses over an important issue and is unable to investigate and recount correctly what happened in this case.
- "... incidentally found in only a few edits ... "
- Displays a very poor understanding of the problems with copy-paste editing. Copy-pasting in an entire paragraph demonstrated his editing style. And prose was not his only problem: he also had sourcing issues.
- his impeccable ability to determine consensus still exists.
- What impeccable ability to determine consensus? Rlevse was most active at DYK, which was then quite well known for no standards, and a copyvio training ground, scant review, and no need for consensus building.
- "His ability to handle contentious discussions with ease ... "
- I don't know where this notion came from; it was his lack of same that led to his 2010 departure. It was not only the copyvio at FA that caused Rlevse to leave as much as the long run-up to the discovery of that copyvio where he was barking at those who were finding copyvio at DYK, calling them "jawflappers", and behaving not well at all under pressure. The end of a long problem at DYK was the discovery of Rlevse's copyvio at FA; at that point he had already behaved quite poorly and had been hot-headed and rude. Other, more recent, examples came forward on his RFA.
- "Not only has he been one of the most stalwart, trusted members of the community ... "
- A trusted member of the community does not breach CLEANSTART to come back and revisit a grudge upon FAC, causing untold wasted time as many editors attempted early on to answer what we thought were good faith questions from a new user who turned out to be someone feigning innocence and ignorance of the process. A trusted member of the community stays and helps clean up copyvio when it is discovered. I can find nothing in Rlevse's recent past that accords him " stalwart, trusted member of the community" status: apparently neither did most editors declaring at his RFA. He has again disappeared since his failed RFA: should we expect him now to re-appear as another undeclared returning user? Please review the lengthy discussions at the runup to the FAC RFC and notice the deception and wasted time that resulted from two deceptive accounts there.
- "... he followed the policy of Clean Starts to the letter ... "
- What? Quite the opposite: he came back to FAC and revisited a grudge there. And then he returned to DYK—known for serial copyvio issues and scanty review—to business as usual.
- "PumpkinSky's amazing content work and collaboration ... "
- Wikipedia has some "amazing" writers and content contributors, and I've had the pleasure at FAC of encountering most of them. "Amazing" content work does not result from cutting and pasting and changing a few words, and there were always prose and sourcing issues in Rlevse's work. There were content problems before Grace Sherwood, with Grace Sherwood, and after Grace Sherwood (see the diffs on the PumpkinSky RFA). This is not intended as criticism of Rlevse: I just wonder what are Keilana's standards, and whether she understands content contributions or Wikipedia policies such as CLEANSTART and copyvio and behavioral issues like socking. Sometimes co-nominators at RFA tend towards this kind of hyperbole because RFA is a vote and they have to "campaign", but if that editor aspires to be an arb, we should see measured and accurate analysis, understanding of policy and guideline, and a demonstration of some sense of perspective and the seriousness of the issues that led to the breach of trust that Rlevse would need to re-earn.
I additionally wonder about Keilana's judgment—that she seemed to believe the community would again entrust Rlevse with the tools. In summary, this user appears to have little appreciation for the disruption that two users visited upon the community for a long period of time, and little ability to present a well-reasoned analysis of the issues based upon principle and policy. Instead, all of her arguments in these cases resort to partisan “fan support” (I like them because they helped *me*.) This is The Worst Kind of Arb We Could Appoint: someone who does not appear to investigate history, doesn't appreciate the time that productive editors lose to disruptive editors, and someone who is willing to support two editors who cause countless lost hours on the project just because they helped *her*.
This is my strongest oppose; we should not appoint an editor to Arb Com who does not understand the core issues she will be called upon to enforce, who accepts indeed endorses disruption from editors who are friendly to *her* personally, who doesn't research issues adequately, and who disrespects the broader community that pays the price when disruptive users are allowed to continue. In neither case did the community agree with Keilana’s endorsement of these users: she is out of touch.
Definite oppose
[edit]I opposed him in 2011 because of strongly disparaging comments he made about another editor including a very nasty incident that did not reflect well upon him or his fellow arb Shell Kinney. Last year I said,
I endorsed Coren when he was elected, but even though he quickly removed this post, that he typed these thoughts is not acceptable for an arb.
Recent issues with socks and returning users violating CLEANSTART make the reasons for last year's oppose relevant again this year. The conversation involving Coren, Shell Kinney, and Giano occurred on a talk page associated with another user's humorous page, and was so disparaging of Giano that it led to Coren not being re-elected. Although they provide important evidence, the original page where they occurred was deleted (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair). Coren was not re-elected last year because of this incident, yet this year, the evidence is not entirely available because of an MfD (unrelated to Coren himself). Curiously, this matter demonstrates yet again the far-reaching and long-lasting effects on the community when the arbs fail to uphold clean start, right to vanish, or are soft on editors returning under new accounts to re-visit old grudges. That we are still, in the 2012 elections, dealing with fallout from an arb who resigned two years ago (Rlevse) in an issue of RTV speaks to the need to elect arbs who are more committed to transparency.
- See discussion with Coren at User talk:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012#Straight facts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing in the Candidate statement to convince me.
While jc37 definitely "gets it" here (and has come under fire for adequately and correctly discussing concerns there), this reactionary post shows an over-the-top disregard for content contributors and a failure to grasp what was really going on leading up to and after the RFC on FA leadership (a group that included a prolific sock who was eventually community banned, and another returning editor violating CLEANSTART, carrying out what amounted to breaching experiments at TFAR and bringing old grudges to bear on FAC and its director, joined by an extremely small handful of editors-- all leading to sustained disruption even after this small group failed to prevail in four RFCs). And his stance in this discussion is unworkably naive.
- See discussion with Jc37 at User talk:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012#Clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I always knew JClemens to be an excellent medical editor, and I supported him in the 2010 elections. However, similar to the situation with Coren, I cannot support a candidate who referred to one of Wikipedia's top content contributors as "not a Wikipedian".
I opposed him in 2011, results then showed there wasn't support for his candidacy, nothing has changed. This looks like "keep trying, and eventually Wikipedia turnover will mean new voters won't remember why you were resoundingly rejected last year".
I have voted in the past for a non-admin, but I have not seen enough from Pgallert to know what kind of arb he would be. I will oppose him on the same basis I would oppose any candidate about whom I don't enough to trust as an arb-- not because he's not an admin.
Sorry, nothing here to convince me. Opposed last year, when he had another name.
Oppose per balance concerns
[edit]These are not strong opposes; they were both hard decisions. I'm concerned that the Committee is badly fractured after recent events, and we need candidates who will be strong on disruption, while calm as deliberators, and be able to clearly distinguish between the skillsets needed for arbitrators vs. mediators.
I've reviewed Beeblebrox's answers to the candidate questions. While I do not hold his outburst at Meta against him (in fact agree with him), I am astonished that he does not see that the same issues do exist on en.wiki. This is an example of the very thing he denies: how admins circle the wagons and don't see issues from the perspective of non-admins. I have participated in two admin RFCs, and in one arb case that saw the desysopping of a most definitely abusive admin, and circling of the wagons by other admins was most certainly a factor in all three cases. I want arbs who will not be soft on admin abuse, and who recognize the extent of the problem. Beeblebrox mentioned that he hopes arb list discussions are "easygoing": they are anything but. Is he prepared for the dissension? His RfB had some opposes that don't convince me one way or the other.
- After reflecting over a sleepless night on recent issues, I have made a decision on this one. It became apparent yesterday just how divided this year's ArbCom was, and how that prevented them from reaching conclusions in many cases. Some of the unflappable arbs are departing (eg, Cas liber), and the need to consider calmness in interaction and deliberation has emerged. The 2012 committee was burdened by hotheads and hysterics, folks who truly lost perspective or hadn't been around arb circles long enough to have gained any, and it looks likely that more of same may be elected this year. I am not by any means saying that Beeblebrox is one of those (hothead hysterical), but some of the feedback at his RfB does give me pause relative to the recent need to balance the incoming Committee with *calmness*. While I don't necessarily disagree with his outburst at Meta, I do take pause at some of the feedback on his RfB, and I am concerned that the Committee has been so harmed by several standing arbs that it is now imperative to focus on candidates who are known for demonstrating a calm approach. I regretfully move this candidate to Likely oppose, and disagree with the guidewriter who said that the very reasons Beeblebrox was rejected as 'crat would make him a good arb-- in another environment, that may be true, but the Committee has been damaged and calm balance is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I opposed last year because I wanted to see more from this worthy candidate. I've seen good feedback (particularly in the Clarification request: Civility enforcement), and he rightly noticed that the Featured article process arb request should have been accepted as a case. He seems most sensible on most matters. But his answers on Candidate questions reveal some concerns. It takes a lot for him to think someone is a net negative to the project? See my views above under Keilana, Regents Park, and Timotheus Canens. WTT opposed the community ban of Merridew, although his reasoning was less objectionable than others-- but he missed the disruption and taunting and hounding. The most difficult arb cases often involve editors who are very disruptive but make otherwise good contributions sometimes—cutting them loose is a tough decision, and I don't want someone who wavers. And I find that Teahouse, mediator types aren't always amenable to recognizing how much havoc some editors can wreak. Worried that he started as an arb clerk but resigned. His statement in the Merridew community ban:
I've been vaguely following the Jack case for years, though I don't believe I really have commented. From what I've seen, Jack has rubbed some people up the wrong way and they appear to be baying for his blood. This then compounds with the general community view that there is no smoke without fire, and sooner or later someone will reasonably put forward a request to have him banned. Clearly a large contingent of the community agree that a ban is right at this juncture, and it may be that it goes through, but all in all, I oppose community banning. Socking requires the abusive use of multiple accounts, and I do not see abusive use between May and this weekend. Yes, his actions this weekend were not acceptable and deserved a block. In fact, I expect he will be de-facto banned, as no one will be willing to unblock him, but community banned? No. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Browse all of the past arb cases involving Merridew/Davenbelle, browse all of the ANI archives, then look at the hounding that occurred at FAC and TFAR by someone who was already under sanction for hounding. My final decision is based on two things: a) WTT's statement that he had vaguely followed the Merridew case for years (so he knew how bad it was, or he should have known)-- he was soft on a long-term disrupter, and his reasoning although technically sound is a weasel,, and b) I always opt for arbs who Just Do Not Engage in off-Wiki Correspondence about arb matters. Period. but as in the case of Beeblebrox above, this is not a strong oppose.
- See User talk:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012#A few comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Leaning oppose
[edit]These three opposes are a result of my reflection on the problems of the 2010 election, where we did not have enough top-notch candidates, leading me to support some candidates who were the "least bad" of the crop, even though we didn't know enough about those candidates, some of whom were freshly-minted admins or not top content contributors. (See Elen of the Roads section above.) These candidates have only been admins since 2011; I don't believe that gives us a good enough sense of how they would arbitrate, whether they are likely to burn out, how lenient or strict on disruptive users they would be, what value they place on content contributors, and how well they would deal with stress. Because the threshold for arbcom elections is set so low (only 50%), I strongly believe we are better off opposing candidates when we don't have enough qualified candidates, and ending up with a smaller committee of more highly supported candidates. I have not further investigated these candidates, and I have no specific reasons to oppose them: in all three cases, they are likely to convince me to support in the future if I see good work from them, but I strongly beleive in the past that we have allowed access to some of our most sensitive and confidential information to candidates who had not demonstrated their worthiness-- this year, I am extra cautious.
See my stance last year on Worm That Turned and my discussion under Leaning oppose; I don't know of specific reasons to oppose Guerillero and he seems to have done good work around the arb pages, but see my discussion above on relatively new admins. Show me more good work and I'll reconsider next year.
This is similar to my oppose last year on Worm That Turned, and this year on Guerillero. I don't know of any specific reasons to oppose Ks0stm, but he has only been an admin for a year, and that does not give me a good enough sense of how he would arbitrate or whether he would burn out.
There is a lot to like in Richwales; top content contributions (including an FA), work in dispute resolution as well, The Farm-- what's not to like. But see above on Guerillero and Ks0stm-- he is a fairly new admin. More time, demonstrate continued commitment around dispute resolution and arb pages, I'll reconsider next year.
Undecided
[edit]See my preamble under "2012 environment": I haven't made a decision on this candidates. On the issues that most concern me, these editors have expressed sentiments that I agree with, and others that I disagree with. I'm unsure how I will vote.
There is a lot to like here, and Salvio giuliano has always done good work. I like his answers on the Civility enforcement Clarification request, but he describes himself as lenient. He didn't answer the question on "Reflection on 2012 cases", and I'm unclear on where he stands on the issues that occurred at FAC because of users returning to revisit old grudges under new names. Some of his answers were good, but they didn't seem as forthright as those of Beeblebrox or Worm That Turned ... in their cases, although I may have disliked a few of their answers, I knew clearly where they stood. I'm not so sure here. Salvio deserves worthy consideration, but I just don't have enough information about him on the issues that concern me.