440:
change; this seems to me to be a spot-on reading and helps show me that Jimbo is not as out of touch with the community as I've feared he might be. Jimbo has decided that part of the way to do this is to appoint more committee members, essentially increasing the percentage of "fresh blood". I have two concerns about this decision. First, it adds more members to the committee who have a lesser degree of community support. This is meant as no offense to Coren, Wizardman and
Carcharoth, but a mere observation of how the results came out. Second, I worry that more members will bog the committee down with a need for higher majorities and the like.
70:. Arbs, you were elected to the committee for a reason: to arbitrate disputes. Other than those recused, plus the through-most-of-the-proceedings-absent Newyorkbrad, I'm afraid you rather failed to do that. The best we could get was a motion to dismiss the case until NYB returned and got the job done (with a few teeth added to the decision by Thebainer). I understand that this was a difficult case, but the complete lack of attention, not only to the case itself, but to the concerns the community was posting, was unacceptable.
453:
whenever you come back, that this new ArbCom will have thought of better solutions that don't involve hammering you over the head with poorly crafted remedies and, more importantly, that you'll be refreshed and ready to write more great articles. To the rest of you who make
Knowledge (XXG) work: Happy New Year; let's see if there's any way we can make 2009 a much better year for Knowledge (XXG) than 2008 was.
84:
keep the committee moving (even if I disagree with his ideas sometimes). Flo, too, who's done a great deal to communicate with the community about her reasoning (to an extent I rather wish the rest of the committee would emulate). And lastly, I'd definitely like to see more YellowMonkeys on the committee: folks who really pay attention to article writers and their needs.
439:
Well, it's over, and Jimbo's decision to expand the committee surprises substantially me a bit. (I did have the possibility in mind, which is part of why I shunned any tactical voting; I just didn't think it was likely to happen.) I applaud Jimbo's reading of the results as the community's desire for
136:
Seems to be doing really well in the election, but I have to say I find some of his answers to the questions unconvincing. The other problem is that I really didn't know the guy prior to his candidacy. Good article work is a plus, though. Neutral (i.e., abstaining) at this point (thus far, it doesn't
74:
I could go on to other concerns, but these are the primary ones. Suffice to say that this alone convinces me that it's time to really be looking for turnover in the committee. This means that I will certainly be disinclined to re-elect any sitting arbitrators (there is a small list in my mind of arbs
418:
This is a hard one for me. I like
Wizardman, and he's got a decent resume, but something about him that's very hard to place strikes me as just not quite ready for ArbCom yet. Some of it may be his comments on Kww's RfA, an oppose I agreed with, but the way he put it wasn't really as restrained as I
324:
I don't know this candidate, and thus I have to rely heavily on the questions. And I have to say that I find his answers to several of the questions unconvincing, notably my own. They're very vague and general, leaving me with no particularly clear insight about how he'd handle the issues I mention,
401:
Moral support. I think some of the criticism of him goes too far, and I agree with
Sjakalle's support for his weathering the constant presence of an abusive sock (while other users abetted said sock, albeit not knowing he was a banned user). I don't think he'd make a good arb, but at this point, my
335:
I've decided to strike. I don't feel the reasons to oppose are there anymore. I also hope he has learnt a great deal from this election cycle. He's showing signs of being teachable, which is something we really need, so perhaps that's a sign that his election (which seems all but inevitable at this
83:
I suppose what I'm looking for most is more folks who are like the arbs I most trust. Newyorkbrad, primarily, who has a strong tendency to see the problems between people and cut to the heart of the issue and think of some plan to solve it. Also Kirill, who's done perhaps more than any other arb to
368:
I think some of the criticism directed at SirFozzie is too extreme. Still, I have to agree that, as good as his intentions no doubt are, and as attractive as his platform is, I just don't see in him the reformer that I want on the committee. Also, because his candidacy is reasonably competitive, I
263:
Well, for one thing, it's a self-nom... In all seriousness, Kurt's approach to the committee is way to extreme even for me, critical of the committee as I am. Trying to shut the committee down is not the answer to our problems. Not to mention his recent trolling and assumptions of bad faith toward
60:
being the clearest bit of info the community has ever been given, to my knowledge) ended up on-wiki. This makes it difficult to be sure to what extent the responsibility falls on FT2, and to what extent upon the committee as a whole, though perhaps it makes little difference. Either way, it was an
91:
Some notes about my voting method: I support every candidate I think will do a good job. Some people have picked out a list of seven and are supporting those and opposing all others to increase the odds of those seven winning. I dun like this method (it's overly confrontational, for one thing). I
452:
Happy New Year, Knowledge (XXG). Happy New Year, Arbitration
Committee, both new and old. More importantly, Happ New Year, article writers. We need you the most. And I want to take a little time to especially wish a Happy New Year to Giano, wherever he may be off on wikibreak. I am hoping that,
218:
Some concerns have arisen that have made me concerned about him. First, his decision to oppose so many of the other candidates wasn't very good judgment. I'm willing to assume good faith that he wasn't just trying to bolster his own candidacy, but still, arbs should be above suspicion of such
238:
Number A, IRC has become a festering sore on the face of
Knowledge (XXG) under his leadership. Letter 2, he hasn't exactly been too communicative during his existing tenure on the ArbCom. Not to mention that I'm not really big reelecting much of anyone, as I've already
95:
If I don't think a candidate will do well, I won't necessarily oppose them: if their candidacy shows no sign of success, I'll just remain neutral (I see no need to pile-on). On the other hand, given that Jimbo has stated that he officially reserves the right to appoint
47:, which was the most classic case of shooting the messenger one could imagine. The committee sanctioned Giano while leaving those users actually responsible for the disturbance by calling others more-than-usually rude names unscathed. Hooray for equity!
61:
obviously unacceptable action to post sanctions against any user who had not committed much more serious misbehaviours (for example, sockpuppetry or privacy violations) than anything OrangeMarlin had done without allowing the user to defend himself.
153:
I don't know Cool Hand Luke, as I was completely out of the
Mantmoreland loop. I'm going to have to do some research on this one. I can't say I'm convinced by the opposers on this one, most of whom seem to be after him for participating in WR.
87:
Unfortunately, it can be hard to evaluate new cadidates. Not all of my expectations were met in those I voted for last round, for example. I'm having to make educated guesses on how candidates will be likely to discharge arbitratorial duties.
182:
I admire much of Fish and karate's work, and it seems to me he's made some improvement lately in his working with those who disagree with him. Still, I'm not quite convinced. Planning to remain neutral since the nomination appears to be going
227:
In the end, he has never gotten to my questions. I'm rather disappointed in thus. I understand that he's had an unfortunate rash of block voting against him; nonetheless, the lack of answers leaves me unconvinced. Permanent switch to
38:
To start out, some general thoughts about where I stand and what biases are coming into my votes. I am highly disappointed in the ArbCom's recent performance. Several factors come into this, among which the greatest are:
478:
You ask, "Why do you care about article writers, Heimstern? You aren't one; you mainly just copyedit and make comments in the project space." I reply, this does not mean I've forgotten that our encyclopedia needs
443:
It's my hope that the next few months and yea, the next year will be enough to crush my doubts. Right now, the ArbCom really needs a good new year for its own sake, the community's and the encyclopedia.
492:
OK, there is one exception for a user whose methods I find exceedingly annoying and even flat-out arseholish, and who ought to be given that message, IMHO. Other than that.
288:
Others have already pointed out all the problems with him being an arbitrator, so I won't heap on the criticism. Also not going to oppose; seems unnecessary at this point.
53:
431:
Finally, I wish to state my official support for two withdrawn candidates: Bishzilla and
Catherine de Burgh. May they long live, even if they do not join the ArbCom.
145:
Charles's own statement pretty much guarantees he will not get my vote, as a continuity candidate is not something in which I have the slightest interest this time.
112:
I don't really see that the candidate has the experience needed for ArbCom, nor does his candidate statement really convince me he even understands what the job is.
92:
know some of the candidates I support won't win, and if they don't, I might as well also be throwing my support behind other candidates I also think will do well.
67:
247:
Jehochman has been diligent in trying to help
Knowledge (XXG), I believe, but I do have to agree with some of his critics that he's sometimes stirred up drama.
75:
who would overcome my disinclination, but as only one of them is of the tranche whose terms are expiring, the list may prove irrelevant this go-round).
44:
100:
with at least 50% support, anyone I disapprove of who gets over 50% will probably get an oppose vote from me. I assure you it's nothing personal.
166:
Nice guy, but I'm just not convinced he's ready to handle disputes of ArbCom level. Does fine as a clerk; I'm in support of him staying that way.
174:
This user doesn't seem to really understand what ArbCom is about, as his statement is all about content issues, which ArbCom does not handle.
224:
At this point, I'm switching to oppose pending replies not only to my own questions, but also to at least one question from another user.
191:
While I do have doubts about the Jimbo mandate, I can't really view a candidacy based solely on challenging said mandate as convincing.
331:
time (it seems to me that getting it wrong the first time is not good for arbs. Of course it'll happen, but it's highly undesirable.)
219:
actions. Furthermore, he's never gotten around to answering my questions, or to many of the other questions asked of the candidates.
333:
I'm still looking over his responses to others, which I find a bit overly defensive, to decide whether to strike my oppose or not.
344:
I've generally found Sam's judgment solid, which would be enough to overcome my tendency against voting for former arbs (and he
307:
I feel Rlevse would make, at worst, an OK arbitrator, so I will support him, though with a bit less enthusiasm some others.
427:
Will's judgment is some of the most sound I've seen on
Knowledge (XXG). In many ways, he reminds me of Newyorkbrad.
56:. As far as I can see, the committee has never made it clear how this "decision", which it apparently never made (
410:
Can't say that his platform, which seems to be rather, well, cudgel-based, is really the reform I'm looking for.
360:
Don't really know her, and her candidacy doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I'll probably just stay neutral.
315:
Once again, no, not looking for the "shit hit the fan"; just want some basic fixes. Exceedingly combative.
352:
Actually, looking again, it wasn't that bad, after all, but he's withdrawn, so it doesn't really matter.
393:
I get a generally good impression of him. I still would like to research him before deciding, though.
120:
Withdrew before I could vote. Probably wouldn't have anyway, since it clearly was going nowhere fast.
27:
207:
Don't really know the guy too well, and as his candidacy seems not to be going anywhere, neutral.
17:
469:
And a completely ineffective rememdy, to boot. All it's caused are block/unblock wars.
26:
I'll be using this page to explain my rationales for my votes in the upcoming
327:
Answers have improved markedly. I still wish he'd answered them well the
128:
He's unconventional in many ways, but still, I find the guy trustworthy.
66:
Oh, guess what? Yup, of course: The extreme delay in the completion of
350:
Unfortunately, his activity just isn't high enough that I can support.
272:
Don't really know the guy, and he doesn't seem especially experienced.
199:
Withdrew before I could vote, so I think I'll refrain from commenting.
369:
feel impelled to oppose, where otherwise I might just remain neutral.
216:
John seems to have very solid judgment, so I'm quick to support him.
299:
I trust her judgment, and think she'd be an asset to the committee.
230:
Finally got to it. Striking oppose and going to neutral.
385:
Cute nom, but not really the sort I can take seriously.
325:
which I think are important ones for committee members.
255:
Not much going for this candidacy, from what I can see.
57:
54:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin
280:
Like Lankiveil, unknown and possibly inexperienced.
68:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV
483:. What the crap would I copyedit without them?
8:
377:Don't really know the guy. Probably neutral.
45:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/IRC
297:Not at all sure she's electable, but still,
462:
221:Debating whether to switch to oppose.
7:
402:support isn't going to make him one.
24:
375:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back:
158:Convinced to support in the end.
104:So, on to the list of candidates
1:
336:point) will be good for us.
264:people who self-nom at RfA.
33:
510:
419:would hope for in an arb.
52:The decision<?> in
348:awhile ago, after all).
28:elections for the ArbCom
435:Comments on the results
79:My thoughts when voting
137:need my vote, anyway!)
43:The absurd ruling in
34:Where I'm coming from
189:George The Dragon:
205:Hemlock Martinis:
143:Charles Matthews:
501:
493:
490:
484:
476:
470:
467:
253:Justice America:
180:Fish and karate:
110:AnthonyQBachler:
509:
508:
504:
503:
502:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
491:
487:
477:
473:
468:
464:
459:
450:
437:
286:Privatemusings:
151:Cool Hand Luke:
106:
81:
36:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
507:
505:
495:
494:
485:
471:
461:
460:
458:
455:
449:
446:
436:
433:
429:
428:
421:
420:
412:
411:
404:
403:
395:
394:
387:
386:
379:
378:
371:
370:
362:
361:
354:
353:
338:
337:
317:
316:
309:
308:
301:
300:
290:
289:
282:
281:
274:
273:
266:
265:
257:
256:
249:
248:
241:
240:
232:
231:
209:
208:
201:
200:
193:
192:
185:
184:
176:
175:
168:
167:
160:
159:
147:
146:
139:
138:
130:
129:
122:
121:
114:
113:
105:
102:
80:
77:
72:
71:
63:
62:
49:
48:
35:
32:
23:
18:User:Heimstern
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
506:
489:
486:
482:
475:
472:
466:
463:
456:
454:
447:
445:
441:
434:
432:
426:
423:
422:
417:
414:
413:
409:
406:
405:
400:
397:
396:
392:
389:
388:
384:
383:TROJAN PONY!:
381:
380:
376:
373:
372:
367:
364:
363:
359:
358:Shell Kinney:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:Roger Davies:
319:
318:
314:
311:
310:
306:
303:
302:
298:
295:
292:
291:
287:
284:
283:
279:
276:
275:
271:
268:
267:
262:
259:
258:
254:
251:
250:
246:
243:
242:
237:
234:
233:
229:
225:
222:
217:
214:
211:
210:
206:
203:
202:
198:
195:
194:
190:
187:
186:
181:
178:
177:
173:
170:
169:
165:
162:
161:
157:
156:Not sure yet.
152:
149:
148:
144:
141:
140:
135:
132:
131:
127:
124:
123:
119:
116:
115:
111:
108:
107:
103:
101:
99:
93:
89:
85:
78:
76:
69:
65:
64:
59:
55:
51:
50:
46:
42:
41:
40:
31:
29:
19:
488:
480:
474:
465:
451:
442:
438:
430:
424:
415:
407:
398:
390:
382:
374:
365:
357:
349:
345:
341:
332:
328:
323:
320:
312:
304:
296:
293:
285:
277:
269:
260:
252:
244:
236:Jdforrester:
235:
226:
223:
220:
215:
212:
204:
196:
188:
179:
172:Dream Focus:
171:
163:
155:
150:
142:
133:
125:
117:
109:
97:
94:
90:
86:
82:
73:
37:
25:
448:Benediction
126:Carcharoth:
425:WJBscribe:
416:Wizardman:
399:White Cat:
366:SirFozzie:
270:Lankiveil:
245:Jehochman:
197:Gwen Gale:
118:BillMasen:
391:Vassyana:
342:Sam Korn:
278:lifebaka:
134:Casliber:
261:Kmweber:
183:nowhere.
481:writers
305:Rlevse:
294:Risker:
228:oppose.
213:Jayvdb:
408:WilyD:
313:RMHED:
164:Coren:
98:anyone
457:Notes
329:first
239:said.
16:<
58:this
346:was
30:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.