User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2010

2010 Arbitration Committee Elections: Voter log; Contact the coordinators; Discuss the elections; Results

Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides

These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion.

This guide represents the personal views of SandyGeorgia:

The election of 12 new arbitrators, to bring the 2011 Committee to a total of 18 arbitrators, is expected for the December 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections—with voting underway through December 5.

A 2009 RFC on the makeup of ArbCom was poorly thought out and had the (intended or unintended) effect or removing to some extent discretion for handling unforeseen events in ArbCom appointments. This RFC extended the Committee size to 18, resulting in the appointment of six members to the 2010 ArbCom with lower support totals than would be necessary to pass RFA; one appointment—Shell Kinney (talk · contribs)—gained less than 60% support.

The 18-member size of the Committee makes it harder for the Committee to come to consensus on deliberations. We give the Arbs access to highly sensitive and personal information, and we are now in the curious position of granting access to privileged information to editors who have lower support totals than are even required to pass the already very low (70%) trust barrier of RFA. If the trend holds for the 2010 election, the result is likely to be another overly large Committee comprised of candidates who gain even lower support percentages.

I hope the unfortunate side effects of the 2009 RFC will be revisted depending upon the outcome of the 2010 elections, but I do not support the notion of an 18-member Committee comprised of members who don't enjoy a high level of trust within the Wiki community, I do not believe they are 12 desirable candidates this year, I will not be Supporting 12 candidates, and it is my hope that there will be no appointments of candidates who gain less than 60% Support. Trust, fairness, balance, diligence, and longevity will be key factors in my Support votes this year.

Criteria

In the 2010 elections, I will be evaluating candidates on:

Longevity and active involvement across a broad spectrum of different areas of Wikipedia.
Every year sees several retirements from ArbCom and the appointment of several members who haven't demonstrated engagement with broad aspects of Wikipedia. I will be looking for candidates who have a demonstrated, long-term commitment to Wikipedia and engagement and knowledge of a broad aspect of Wikipedia. I won't be looking for just mediators, just writers, just clerks, or just admins, rather balance and longevity.
Trustworthiness, balance, fairness, respect, and diligence in investigating disputes.
Because of the possibility of increasingly large committees made up of members with decreasing support totals, evidence of trustworthiness and integrity will weigh heavily in my decisions this year. We entrust highly sensitive and personal confidential information to the arbs, and with lower support tallies, trustiworthiness is key.
Position on editors who evidence lack of maturity with respect to the pillars of Wikipedia.
Increasing numbers of immature editors are making it harder and harder for serious editors to do productive work on Wikipedia. If you don't "get that", I'm unlikely to Support.
Position on need for reform of RFA, RFC/U and Wiki processes to deal with admin actions
Support for a stronger, faster and easier means of removing admin tools from admins who misuse them.

Support for curtailing the peanut gallery and double standard evidenced for admins vs. other users at ANI.
I am unlikely to support any candidate who is weak on admin abuse or misuse of tools—abusive admins make productive work on Wiki as difficult as do the trolls, vandals, POV pushers, and immature editors.
Knowledge of and support for content contributors, and an end to coddling of disruptive editors.
And speaking of what makes work impossible on Wiki, the 2009 and 2010 Arb Committees both coddled disruptive users. Even editors who share certain POVs on Climate Change were disappointed at the failure to severely sanction the most disruptive editors, and the general rounding up of lesser disruptive editors in a shotgun approach to the CC disruptive editing.
Strong enforcement of Wiki's policies on Biographies of living persons and knowledge of high-quality sourcing and responsible writing in BLPs and science/biomedical articles.
I will be looking for candidates who understand the importance of the highest quality sourcing in both BLPs and medical articles; in my opinion, Wiki's obligation to put out responsible medical information is as strong as its responsibility in the BLP realm.

Candidate chart

Table formatting cribbed from User:Lar/ACE2010.

User/Talk/Contribs	Statement and details	Rights	Edits	Since	My thoughts	Intended vote
Balloonman • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[1] none	22656	2006-04-01	I like Balloonman for the things he does well, but don't think he's ready to be an arb nor do I think serving on ArbCom fits with his skills. Sporadic editing, not knowledgeable across a broad spectrum, and although he is good at the things he focuses on, I don't think those are part of necessary skils for arbs. See also NuclearWarfare and Wizardman.	Oppose
Casliber • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[2] A, (ex)Arb	76277	2006-05-05	For the same reasons I supported his first run, and I thought the brouhaha that led to his retirement overblown. Was a good arb, is civil, respectful, knowledgeable, respects content creators, and we need science arbs.	Support
Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[3] A	22036	2005-08-08	Non-content contributor, not involved enough across broad spectrum, and per Ealdgyth	Oppose
David_Fuchs • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[4] A	26502	2005-10-15	Fuchs is sensible, trustworthy, knowledgeable across a broad spectrum, civil, respectful, and has demonstrated commitment and longevity-- all the qualities I'm looking for.	Support
Elen_of_the_Roads • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[5] A	7892	2008-05-11	EotR isn't a top content contributor, but she has solid investigatory skills, strong backbone, remarkable common sense and a no-nonsense approach, is fair, a straight shooter, and summarizes and gets to the heart of complex issues well. I think she would be a very solid asset to ArbCom.	Support
FT2 • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[6] A,EFM	39260	2004-07-11	I'm not much worried about the issues that led to FT2's previous Arb retirement, but I do think he's a bit out of touch with the community now. If he'd engage content a bit more strongly, I'd probably feel better about him next year. See also Wizardman.	Oppose
Georgewilliamherbert • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[7] A,EFM	13211	2005-07-31	No. Too Much Drama, Too Little Content.	Strong Oppose
GiacomoReturned • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[8] none	6827	2009-05-26	Demonstrated knowledge, longevity and commitment don't get any better than Giano, considering all he's seen and done on the Wiki, for better or worse. That he's still here is a testament to his commitment. My Support of Giano may raise eyebrows because 1) I'm pretty sure he disliked me when I was new, and 2) some newer users only associate Giano with controversy. Nonetheless, I have never seen Giano betray trust or confidence, he can be trusted as an arb, and he does have Wiki's and its best editors' interests at heart. He is definitely in touch with the Community—something the arbs need.	Support
Harej • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[9] A	15497	2004-11-26	No, not a contender, see Ealdgyth	Strong Oppose
Iridescent • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[10] A	146284	2006-02-15	Iri is the "simply the best" candidate this year; there is nothing Iri doesn't know, doesn't follow, doesn't do, doesn't get. Demonstrated longevity and dedication, involvement across broad spectrum of Wiki, has clue, top content contributor. 'Nuff said.	Strong support
Jclemens • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[11] A	26102	2006-08-24	Favorable encounters, trustworthy user, I'm not overly concerned about the RFC, don't see any problems with his BLP stance, and we need more arbs with science backgrounds.	Support
John_Vandenberg • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[12] A,C,O, (ex)Arb	46836	2004-09-05	I was uneasy about JvdB in 2008 because of the canvassing in his favor that led to this election, and I've seen nothing since 2008 to reassure me. One resignation too many, I'm not impressed with involvement off-Wiki, and think he's soft on disruptive editors. See also NuclearWarfare.	Oppose
Loosmark • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[13] Rv	8186	2007-12-26	Not a contender, see NuclearWarfare.	Strong Oppose
Newyorkbrad • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[14] A,C,O, Arb	25894	2006-02-25	Still good, even if he has a soft spot for immature editors and doesn't seem to recognize how much disruption they cause.	Support
Off2riorob • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[15] Rv	43780	2008-12-04	I've not had positive interactions with Offtoriorob, echoing the findings of Lar, Ncmvocalist, and NuclearWarfare. This attitude (making fun of a fellow editor) shows temperment unsuited to ArbCom.	Oppose
PhilKnight • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[16] A	62274	2006-07-17	Curiously soft on admin misuse of tools (the only other editors endorsing the views he endorsed were editors who had axes to grind with me), not a content contributor, we don't need more "soft" mediator-types, and per Lar, NuclearWarfare	Oppose
Sandstein • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[17] A	41849	2005-07-31	I've never had a favorable impression, as per Ealdgyth, Lar, NuclearWarfare, and Wizardman.	Oppose
Shell_Kinney • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[18] A,C,O, Arb	28921	2005-06-10	I've opposed her twice, she snuck in last year because of the unfortunate RFC that extended the committee to 18, and I oppose her even more strongly this year, and she has reinforced the very reasons I had for opposing her with the uninformed, disrespectful mocking and sneering of fellow editors here, behavior unbecoming of an arb, and the fine art of the non-apology apology (aka weasel), where she blamed everyone except Rlevse for his copyvio. Also, I am concerned about her involvement in the Climate Change debacle, where, instead of strongly sanctioning the most disruptive editors, they aimed a shotgun at just about everyone involved (in other words, make the popular decision instead of the tough one). Also per Ncmvocalist and Wizardman.	Strong Oppose
SirFozzie • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[19] A,C,O, Arb	8873	2006-02-06	Lar sums up exactly what ArbCom needs: I agree that SirFozzie is a much-needed firm voice against disruptive editors. Also like his clarity.	Support
Stephen_Bain • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[20] A, (ex)Arb	12024	2004-10-08	Per Lar, NuclearWarfare and Wizardman, also concerned about inactivity and being out of touch.	Oppose
Xeno • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights	statement • stmt. talk • Questions: All/Lar's	[21] A,B	82632	2006-07-14	I generally like Xeno, but not a content contributor, not engaged broadly with Wiki, and see NuclearWarfare and Wizardman.	Oppose