807:
abusing the
Motions system to do things that would normally be outside of their remit or would never fly as part of a full case. I asked about the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion because I think it is genuinely important to be able to see how candidates would approach it (and the aftermath) differently. Rschen7754's questions, many of which Floquenbeam also declined to expend the effort to answer, are also on-point and explore key areas that come up in ArbCom cases. The argument that I was asking an unreasonable amount of questions is flimsy. ArbCom cases have unreasonable amounts of evidence, take an unreasonably long time to resolve, and involve an unreasonably high amount of behind-the-scenes discussions. If you're not willing to spend five hours answering questions (my estimate is that it would take an hour for mine, an hour for Rschen's, an hour for the general questions, and two hours for the rest, although that estimate assumes time for research and writing that not everyone would take), what confidence do I have that you'll spend the time to properly read into cases and investigate the situations brought before the committee? The candidate already indicated said that he's "not going to be a terribly active arb". The last thing that you'd want to follow that up with is cutting corners on answering the questions.
1198:). I realize that not everyone is going to put hours and hours of time into the project on a regular basis, and that judging people by edit count or edit count by month isn't always terribly useful. I am supporting AGK's candidacy, and he's averaged around 200 or 250 edits a month for years, even though those numbers are low to me. However what differentiates this candidate from AGK is that while AGK has only posted two months with less than 100 contributions in the past two years (lowest being 74), Seraphimblade frequently just disappears. In the past two years, Seraphimblade has had four months with 0 edits and an additional three months with less than 10 edits. The last three months with 0 edits were March, April, and May of this year. The candidate has been disappearing like this since 2009. ArbCom is a tremendous drain on time, requires a constant commitment, and doesn't really function when the number of active Arbs gets too low. I'm not sure I can support Seraphimblade being that, based on his past activity levels, he very well might not be around for a quarter of his term.
1132:
question. Considering that the topic of that question was the focus of
Richwales' candidacy, that certainly is important. I was, however, very much unimpressed with his answer to the question from Leaky Caldron, and indeed the entire situation. While I will go on the record saying that talk page access should have been revoked for KW weeks and weeks ago when it was clear that he was using the page for purposes other than appealing the ban, revoking talk page access now creates the illusion of impropriety. However the largest red flag here is that Richwales seems to think that it would have been okay for him to delete the guide and revoke talk page access if KW had endorsed Richwales, and that it was okay for him to bring up the matter to ArbCom, but not to delete the guide and revoke talk page access because KW opposed Richwales. This is a case of missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter
607:"Pinch-your-nose voting" is the practice of forcing yourself to vote for at least nine candidates (the total number of openings this year), even if there are not nine candidates that you'd be willing to support. This practice is grounded in the belief that, if you don't pick the nine candidates that are most tolerable, one of the ones you really don't like will get in. Such a belief tends to ignore that candidates must have a support percentage of at least 50% to be elected, so the really bad candidates aren't going to get in anyways. Such a belief may also be based on the fear that the voters might wind up not electing enough people. ArbCom has survived with less than a full compliment of members for large periods of its history, and between resignations and absentions, has decided very few cases with a full complement of Arbs recently anyways.
894:
conversations with her in person and over IRC, I am impressed not only with her insight into the project (both from a technical and a community standpoint), but also her enthusiasm towards
Knowledge (XXG). GorillaWarfare is someone that likes being a public face of the project and representing Knowledge (XXG) to outsiders. She has done so as part of the educational program, as the planner and host of a Wiki Loves Libraries event, over OTRS, and as one of the faces of the annual advertising drive banners. ArbCom has historically had difficulties managing communication between the committee and the larger community, and there have been times where a lack of clear communication from ArbCom has led to confusion or anger within the community. Having someone on the committee that thrives in an ambassadorial role is undoubtedly a good thing.
1037:
information. The candidate's answer to Rschen7754 question 6 certainly doesn't help his case in this regard. Looking over the questions, I see a pattern of Kww providing aggressive, blunt answers without providing any details or examples to back up his assertions and without providing any qualifiers to focus the scope of his statements. This is not at all surprising, however, as Kww has a track record of similar comments outside of the ArbCom elections. Although I sometimes agree with the underlying points he's making, he loses me with his overly broad and generally tactless delivery. It's the vociferousness that gets me here, the "trim a bonsai with a fire axe" mentality. There are places where that is useful and can make a positive impact. ArbCom is not one of them.
1128:
dislike the candidate's communication style. The often puzzling, liberal use of bold and italics in the nomination statement and answers to the questions, rather than making his arguments stronger, encourages people to dismiss them as being rants. An editor with as long a tenure and as much dispute resolution experience as
Richwales should recognize this as being problematic, as it is something I would expect him to have encountered before, specifically in rants. I have very little patience for rants (a sentence that is equally correct whether "rants" refers to the trite form of argument or to the person delivering said argument). While I am not entirely convinced that Richwales is a rant, he must do better to avoid appearing like one.
837:, the candidate has a boom-bust edit history as of late. In other words, he makes a ton of edits over a few months, then largely disappears for a few months, then makes a ton of edits over a few months, then largely disappears for a few months, and so on. I don't feel comfortable electing people with patterns of disappearing for months at a time to ArbCom, where a member disappearing for months at a time causes strains on the rest of the Arbs, and the functionality of the committee. I also think that the candidate took a rather long time to give some rather short answers to the questions. I'm not seeing red flags in the answers, but I am seeing a lot of answers that aren't as complete or detailed as I'd want them to be.
656:
high level. His answers to general questions 3, 6, and 7 were great. His answers to Rschen7754 questions 2, 3, 4, and 6 were great. His answers to Sven
Manguard (my) questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 were great. His thinking on Sven Manguard (my) questions 1 and 2 are pretty much exactly my own. The candidate's answer to Rschen7754 question 5 isn't for everyone. There are quite a few editors that would take from that answer that his stance on admin misconduct as being too weak. I'm not convinced, however, that it's a bad answer. Taken alone, it might seem that way, but in the larger context of the body of answers provided thus far, it fits nicely into his theme of not making a bigger deal of things then there has to be.
1014:, as it would be a fundamental reshaping of the committee's role. ArbCom is tasked with resolving intractable disputes, but it has never before gone out and picked those disputes. The one time I remember them approaching that was several years ago when the committee used a motion to go after an editor that was sanctioned in an earlier case, despite there being a community discussion only days prior where there was no consensus for action. That incident got incredibly messy, and some people (myself included) still view ArbCom's actions in that motion as a breach of trust as a miscarriage of justice. I have little doubt that should ArbCom open cases by motion in the future, they will be similarly messy.
1164:, that I felt then and still feel today were grossly inappropriate. I find myself opposing him today because of those two motions. I will in all likelihood find myself opposing him again in two years over those same motions (I expect him to be re-elected, even if I don't want it to happen). The candidate's answers to Sven Manguard (my) question 2 indicates that he is still open to such motions, so it's not a reason for opposition that I feel can simply be dropped. Also, as was the case during the 2011 re-election, I find the volume of non-ArbCom edits Roger Davies is making to be far too low. The last time spent any significant time editing outside of ArbCom related matters was 16 June 2013.
871:, he's had zero edits in a month six times in the last two years, and only broken 100 edits a month once in that time frame. As I explain towards the bottom (see Seraphimblade write up), I'm uncomfortable with that kind of level of absence. I am also unimpressed with Georgewilliamherbert's candidacy statement. There is a saying that I've heard from lawyers that goes "If you have the law, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have the facts, pound on the table." It means, when you have nothing else going for you, use emotion to try to sway the jury. Georgewilliamherbert lacks compelling credentials for ArbCom, so he is pounding on the table. I'll pass on that.
1060:
in detail after cases wouldn't be productive most, if not all, of the time. I think his answer to Rschen7754 question 4 is good, but his answer to question 5 of that set is supremely naive and his answer to question 7 of that set is too limited. LFaraone has a lot of mediocre answers, and I've come away with the sense that he probably knows what he's talking about in most cases, but isn't a terribly effective communicator, and has an unrealistic view of the community's willingness and ability to handle highly polarixing things like desysopings. There are worse candidates than LFaraone, but that's not a reason to support this candidate, and I see little reason to do so otherwise.
984:. It's a perfectly valid question to ask, but I'm not sure that a current candidate should be asking if another current candidate meets the qualifications or not. There are plenty of other eyes in the area that could have asked the question without having an apparent conflict of interest in doing so. I don't think that Kraxler was being unethical, but it does show just how foreign Knowledge (XXG)'s political side is to Kraxler. Not getting bogged down in the nastiness of Knowledge (XXG) politics is a good thing, but we have other candidates that also manage not to get bogged down in Knowledge (XXG) politics, but still know how to navigate it when they need to.
977:
the candiate has only nine edits to AN and AN/I combined, and his answer to general question 2 (about experience with dispute resolution), Kraxler reveled that his only dispute resolution experience has been speaking one on one with editors that disagreed with him in articles he was personally editing. There is certainly a case for having article writers serve on the committee, as it's an important prospective for editors to have. However, in reading through the questions he ha answered, I get the feeling that
Kraxler is just way too out of his element here. General questions 3, 12, and 14 really put this on display.
1086:, which show that over the past two years, NativeForeigner has eight months with less than 10 edits and another two months with less than 20 edits. That would be a dealbreaker for me under many circumstances, however it's worth noting that the activity has picked up in the past half year. What hasn't picked up, however, is the candidate's contributions to the article namespace (or any other non-administrative area), which made up a solid chunk of his edits in 2010 but barely register today. Based on what I've seen from other Arbs, being on ArbCom will only magnify that problem.
898:
picking their own cases when they feel that there's an issue and the community won't bring it to them, but at the same time she's not really endorsing it either. It's a position I'd like more clarity from her on. While her answer to general question 9 is a valid and defensible one, it's not one I agree with (despite my opposing him, I think Roger Davies' answer to that question is the best one I've seen, and
GorillaWarfare's answer is pretty much the exact opposite). On the balance of things, however, the questions are still good. This is an easy support.
1247:
Arbs, have given extensive thought to, and is something that people that want to be part of ArbCom need to give serious thought to. "I don't have a clue until I am working in the area." is not an acceptable answer. In his answer to Rschen7754 3, rather than do some research on the issue (an issue, I should note, that a serious candidate for ArbCom should not need to research), he simply responded "I don't know. I haven't really paid all that much attention to discussions on this subject.". In fact, a common theme amongst the candidate's answers to
298:
289:
316:
769:
committee function and the committee's relations with the broader community. Even if his judgement was otherwise flawless (it isn't), and his answers to the election questions were profound (they aren't), I am uncomfortable with electing such an unnecessarily abrasive voice to the committee. Controversial opinions are fine. Standing firmly behind your opinions is fine. Treating routine disagreements as flame wars is not fine.
830:
history of conflict resolution, I'm not seeing any specific points that the candidate is using as a rallying cry. His platform is civility, but so is almost everyone's. There's certainly a virtue to not running on a platform of "XXX is broken! We must fix XXX immediately!", but as I already said, I'm just not seeing anything that would indicate
Gamaliel as either a natural candidate, or even a good fit, for ArbCom.
604:(see right), and increasing the difference between the support percentage of your chosen candidates and everyone else. With an expected turnout of between 500 and 1000 voters, any one vote isn't going to matter enough to make this effective. It is, however, disrespectful, and if it does manage to work, will unfairly malign middle of the pack candidates while doing nothing to change the outcome of the election.
307:
714:
warring) could wind up, four years later, back in ArbCom getting sanctioned (for edit warring). The fact of the matter is, it's not that hard to avoid edit warring, especially when you're manually editing in a highly trafficked area. To me, this is just a show of terrible judgement on Arthur Rubin's part. A history of contentious editing and bad judgement calls does not an ideal ArbCom member make.
280:
271:
31:
925:, and so I can point to those. His answers to general questions 2 and 3b, Rschen7754 question 2, Hot Stop question 2, and Risker's question show that, for someone whose entry into Wikipolitics took me by surprise at the time, really "gets it". I actually really like his Big Man/Chief analogy in Rschen7754 question 2 a lot. Additionally, I have to say that I was impressed to (re)discover
929:, which I assume I knew about at one time and agreed to be a part of (although I have no memory of it now), as it shows that Guerillero viewed adminship in an appropriate context. Mind you, it's rather a moot point now since Guerillero is (by voluntary resignation not under a cloud) not an admin anymore, but that doesn't change the thought processes behind that page.
635:
their decisions at a level that you feel comfortable with. If you don't trust the author, or you don't feel comfortable that the guide was written in good faith and with great care, don't put much weight in that guide's advice. But it is your job, not mine, to make the determination as to which guides to give weight to and which ones to ignore.
1105:
field, and I like a lot of the answers he gives to the questions. His answers to general question 11, Rschen7754 questions 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10, Sven
Manguard (my) questions 2, 6, and 7, and Piotrus question 6 are all quite good. I'm not sure what to make of his answer to SirFozzie's question, but for some reason it makes me uncomfortable.
1295:
to a lesser degree the 2013 RfA, disgusted me. It is entirely the community's place, however to say "when you take on additional responsibilities, you have a tendency to casually abandon them, so I'm not comfortable with letting you take on additional responsibilities". As
NuclearWarfare's guide pointed out,
1136:
KW said; Richwales is an ArbCom candidate, KW is writing a guide, there's a rather obvious conflict of interest here. This is a situation where I'd expect Richwales to stay away from the situation entirely, and it raises serious concerns as to whether or not the candidate would know when to recuse in
1108:
Truth be told, I'm not entirely sure that there's any reason why I shouldn't be giving RegentsPark a full support, rather than a weak support, other than that I've been looking over the candidate for several days and there's just something in the back of my mind that's causing me discomfort about the
957:
However I am not convinced that Isarra has the community standing needed to serve effectively as an arb. A great deal of ArbCom's power comes from that the community respects ArbCom as an institution, and respects the individual members of the committee, enough to carry out the committee's decisions.
893:
I had no idea that GorillaWarfare was planning on running, but once I saw that she was, I had little doubt that I'd wind up endorsing her. GorillaWarfare is competent and sane, with a high percentage of edits in the article namespace and acceptable (but not stellar) edit per month figures. Having had
863:
Georgewilliamherbert has some good answers to a few of the questions. In particular, his answers to general question 3 and Sven Manguard (my) question 2 are spot on. I also like his responses to Collect question 2 and general question 14. The candidate's answers tend to lack nuance and come across as
616:
Lots of people post lots of questions every year. Most candidates answer them all, while some candidates pick and choose their answers. There's nothing wrong with peppering candidates with fifty questions. I subscribe heavily to the "If you can't handle the workload from election questions, you won't
1308:
Right now, I'm putting him in the Abstain column. That might change, but it would require Secret to knock the (at this time largely unanswered) questions section out of the park, so that I'd feel that his fit for the committee is so good that it outweighs my fears that he might drop out three months
1299:
this past April. Being an effective Arb requires a consistent, high level of participation. It's not something that you can just stop doing for a few weeks and then pick back up as if nothing has happened. Yes, you can go inactive, but that still causes issues for the rest of the committee. While it
1078:
I've had limited interactions with NativeForeigner in the context of SPI, where was a former clerk (now CU) and I was a former clerk trainee, but I can't think of any events there that would shape my opinion of the candidate one way or the other. What does shape my opinion, however, is the candidacy
987:
The candidate also refused to answer any of my questions, although he made the announcement after I had already written this oppose. I find his reasoning for this decision to be weak (although I seriously doubt I'd find any reasoning for refusing to answer questions to be acceptable), as an argument
976:
Kraxler does a commendable amount of content creation. 79.5% of his edits are in the mainspace, his lowest monthly edit figure in the past two years is 165, and with the exception of that month, hasn't had less than 190 edits in a month in the past two years. That's all really good. That being said,
806:
I didn't ask seven questions because I like to hear the sound of my own voice (or see the type of my own words). I asked seven questions because I thought that there were seven questions that needed asking. I asked about motions because there has been, in my view, a bit of a history of specific Arbs
713:
In his candidacy statement, Arthur Rubin claims that his sanction as part of the 2013 Tea Party Movement case have been called "one of the worst ArbCom decisions, ever". I have a very hard time understanding how someone with a long block log (for edit warring) and and 2009 ArbCom sanctions (for edit
1294:
It is not the community's place to make medical decisions on behalf of another user - to say "taking on additional responsibilities might be bad for your health, so I'm not comfortable with letting you take on additional responsibilities". For that reason, much of what was said in the 2011 RfA, and
1059:
However I can't get excited by the answers to the candidate's questions. His answer to Sven Manguard (my) question 2 is correct, but I really dislike his answer to question 5 of that set. Obviously the law of diminishing returns comes into play, but I fail to see why Arbs laying out their reasoning
1017:
I can't imagine a weaker support than this one. Quite frankly, had there been a stronger crop of candidates this year, I'd abstain or oppose. However I did speak with Ks0stm over IRC to give him a chance to explain that point in greater detail, and while he did not completely alleviate my concerns,
840:
With no real reason to support and a few decent reasons to oppose, I really should be voting oppose here. I'm abstaining, however, because when I look at the other names in the Oppose column, Gamaliel doesn't really fit. I don't really see Gamaliel as being an ideal Arb, but such a prospect doesn't
829:
Gamaliel has an admirable track record of mainspace contributions, stretching very, very far back in time. The consensus is that he is a largely uncontroversial user. As far as I can tell, there are no red flags. That being said, I've got no idea why this candidate is running. I'm not seeing a long
787:
An editor that was recently sanctioned by ArbCom and has a bone to pick decides to run for ArbCom on a platform of 'the system is broken, toss everyone out and let me fix it'. We've had candidates like this before, we'll have candidates like this again; it's a classic bad candidate archetype. David
768:
Simply put, I've seen Bwilkins fly off the handle and be far more aggressive and confrontational than a situation calls for too many times to support him as an Arb. I feel that his apparent unwillingness to be tactful in situations where people disagree with him will be a detriment to both internal
740:
Looking at the questions, however, I find myself back in opposition for another year. I am, as would be expected by anyone that's read my previous guides, unhappy with the candidate's answer to Sven Manguard (my) question 2, but I like his responses to questions 5 and 6 from my set. I am worried by
667:
help, and since the candidate pool is weak, I might as well). On the whole, however, that is not nearly enough to override what is otherwise an outstanding set of answers. Because I've seen nothing that would indicate that 28bytes' thoughts or actions differ from the thinkings he's given during the
630:
A few years ago there was some nastiness surrounding guide writers' endorsing and opposing other guides. As a result, I've come to view the practice of endorsing and opposing other guides with some disdain. I will, however, reference other guides in my guide. My choosing to reference a guide is not
452:
A good guide does this using levelheaded analysis, backed where possible with evidence. A bad guide does this based on old grudges. Either way, users should be aware that each guide writer, however respected they are, and however well written their guide happens to be, is pushing an agenda, and one
1190:
I'm torn on this one, so I'm abstaining. On the one hand, Seraphimblade's answers to the questions were very good. The "Deletionist" explanation on his userpage shows that the candidate is able to think and express himself with nuance, and defend positions that are not necessarily 'mainstream'. He
1104:
There are some questionable unblocks that a few of the guides point to, and I agree when Rschen7754 says in his guide that no one admin should be unblocking a user three times in a row. That aside, I'm seeing a lot of positives here. I think that RegentsPark has the best candidacy statement in the
1055:
By reputation, it would seem that this candidate would make a decent arb. Highly respected, with experience in OTRS and advanced permissions, LFaraone has picked up a number of solid endorsements, although hasn't (or in some cases, possibly hasn't yet) been endorsed by all of the guides I feel are
690:
The candidate has also delivered what is, up to this point, the best set of answers thus far to both the general and community questions. His well thought out, nuanced answers to Rschen7754 question 2, 3, and 4, Hawkeye7 question 2, and general questions 7 and 9 were very impressive. His positions
634:
That being said, there are good guides and there are bad guides. As I said above, all guides should be looked at with a critical eye. You, as a voter, should look at each guide and decide whether the person writing it is doing so for a proper reason, is exercising good judgement, and is explaining
1216:
I can't remember having any negative interactions with this user personally, but the candidate has a long block log and a reputation as a dramamonger. I personally don't believe that the candidate has the temperament or community trust required to be an Arb, and considering that of the nine other
1171:
I fully expect that most of the other guides that I consider worth reading will support this candidate, and it is entirely their prerogative to do so. That doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make me wrong. This is just an area where I personally feel strongly, and other guide writers might not.
1127:
The picture that this candidate has painted for me is one of a person frothing at the mad mouth over the issue of incivility. Richwales does make a number of good points on the matter, but he does so with an intensity that, frankly, I find a bit worrisome. I also have to say that I really, really
1036:
Embarrassingly, I seem to have neglected to ask this candidate my set of questions, but I don't need them in this case. The candidate's answer to Rschen7754 question 8 alone warrants an oppose, possibly a strong oppose, and raises serious concerns about the candidate's approach towards non-public
736:
this candidate, saying "While I am not especially convinced that he would do a bad job as an Arb, I do think that Beeblebrox is controversial and carries with him too much existing drama already, and that's something that I most definitely do not want to see in an Arb." The basic gist behind that
686:
AGK has a proven track record of putting in the time to do this job right. That's important, especially as ArbCom is set to lose a solid chunk of its institutional memory and some of its hardest workers at the end of this election cycle. The ringing endorsement from NuclearWarfare in his guide is
655:
At the time that I wrote AGK's support (below), he had the best set of answers to date. 28bytes's answers might be even better, and if he continues down the path he's started, might end up with the greatest set of answers I've seen in any election to date. 28bytes "gets it", and does so on a very
1246:
GregJackP's answers to the questions give me little to no hope that he will be an effective Arb. Generic question 9 asks candidates to think critically about the role of ArbCom and how it fits into the broader Knowledge (XXG) and Wikimedia communities. This is something that many users, not just
764:
ArbCom does, and do not hesitate to create noise on the ArbCom noticeboards. More often than not, decisions are not near-universally accepted, and editors in good standing will come forth to ask for clarifications, or to voice disagreements. Especially in the latter case, Arbs need to be able to
1155:
Is it wrong for me to hold against Roger Davies today his actions from several years ago? The argument could certainly be made that I would be out of line in doing so. The fact of the matter is, though, that that because of those actions I don't trust Roger Davies' judgement, and I feel just as
954:, Isarra is a well-reasoned, well-spoken person with a keen awareness of the faults of the Knowledge (XXG) community. I've met her in person and spoken with her over IRC extensively, and have to say that if she took the job of being an Arb seriously, I suspect that she'd do a decent job at it.
920:
Being that I was one of the people that prodded Guerillero into running, I don't really need to see his answers to the questions before I finalize my support. I think that he's trustworthy, sane, and would do a good job as an Arb. That being said, he answered almost all of the questions already
897:
As for her answers to the questions, I think that the answers to general questions 14 and 15 were spot on, and her answer to Mark Arsten's question was truly excellent. I'm a bit unhappy with her answer to Sven Manguard (my) question 2, because she appears to be leaving the door open to ArbCom
1131:
Looking past the way that his points were made, and focusing instead on the substance of those points, I find myself similarly unimpressed. I like his answers to Sven Manguard (my) questions 2 and 6, striking a suburb balance in the latter. I also like the answer he gave to Heim (Heimstern)'s
1009:
Then I got to his answer to my second question, where he said "If the community cannot resolve an issue for quite some time and no arbitration request has been forthcoming I believe (even though this is not explicitly stated in the arbitration procedures) that ArbCom could pass a full motion
1167:
I should note though, that while it's not nearly enough to tip me in his favor, Roger Davies has what I feel to be the best answer to general question 9 out of all the candidates, and I hope that those changes are pursued in 2014 with or without this candidate as a member of the committee.
73:
741:
the candidate's answer to SirFozzie's question. While I don't have much context to go by, going only off of what Beeblebrox said, it seems that the candidate confuses being a "designated jerk" with being an unnecessarily vicious jerk. It's my 2012 concerns all over again.
621:
Just because I have asked a set of questions does not mean that my preferred answers to those questions are the "right" ones. It's worth noting that when I review candidates' answers to questions, I'm looking at more than just whether they agree with my position or not.
788:
Gerard has also been stripped of his CU and OS tools, which other guides written by people that were active at the time will go into in more detail, I'm sure. The fact of the matter is I don't trust David Gerard, and I find his motives for running to be highly suspect.
737:
thought is that Beeblebrox has an awful relationship with Meta, and it's mostly Beeblebrox's fault. This year, however, Beeblebrox is somewhat less controversial, and the candidate pool itself is somewhat worse, which does make opposing borderline candidates harder.
922:
600:"Strategic voting" is the practice supporting only one or only a small number of candidates and opposing all the others. The idea behind this is that by opposing all of the candidates except for the few you support, you are bringing down those other candidates'
958:
Simply put, I don't think that Isarra personally commands enough respect as a mediator and community leader to be an effective member of ArbCom, as she does not have extensive experience in either content building or in conflict resolution on this project.
759:
Tact is important, especially for ArbCom. Almost all of ArbCom's decisions are going to generate at least some degree of controversy. Even if the decision is near-universally accepted as solid and fair, there are a few editors that take issue with
810:
By refusing to answer the questions, we are left with an incomplete picture of how Floquenbeam approaches key issues, but a much more complete picture of how much effort Floquenbeam is willing to put into ArbCom. The answer: not nearly enough.
115:
238:
1109:
candidate. I wish I knew what it was, but it's not strong enough to dissuade me from supporting, and I'm not seeing anything in any of the other guides that are triggering anything more specific than a vague sense of unease. Sorry.
78:
100:
695:. His answers to Sven Manguard (my) question 6 and 7 are also impressive. I'm not saying that it's the "right" answer, but it's certainly a position I can get behind, and strikes a good balance between idealism and pragmatism.
1326:
1191:
has commendable experience in dispute resolution as well. In fact, if I were going just by the questions, or even purely by what the candidate was doing while he was active, I'd definitely be supporting Seraphimblade.
1225:
I did not write analyses for two of the four candidates that withdrew before they withdrew. However, based on my initial impressions, I was likely going to support Courcelles and either abstain or oppose Kevin Gorman.
1304:
happen, giving someone a space on a critically important committee of limited size, which only replenishes once a year, with the knowledge that that person has dropped adminship several times makes me uncomfortable.
631:
an endorsement of that guide as a whole, and my lack of references to a guide is not an indication that I oppose that guide. Please don't read into these things too deeply. Sometimes a reference is just a reference.
105:
110:
864:
rather basic, but sometimes a simple answer is good; it can make a statement more powerful. Sometimes, however, more detail is better. I'd liked to have seen more from the candidate in several of the questions
1079:
statement and the questions, both of which I liked. I think that his answer to Mark Arsten's question is a solid one, as well as to Rschen7754 question 3 and to Sven Manguard (my) questions 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7.
916:
Before I go any further I should note for the record that I consider Guerillero a friend and have spoken with him extensively on IRC. I was also one of the people that prodded him towards running this year.
466:
You should support any candidates you want to see on the committee, oppose any candidates you don't want to see on the committee, and abstain in cases where you have no opinion one way or the other. Period.
450:
The point of a voter guide is not for a guide author to predict who is going to win, but for a guide author to offer their subjective judgement on each individual candidate, as it pertains to the election.
889:
Before I go any further I should note for the record that I consider GorillaWarfare a friend and have spoken with her extensively on IRC, and have met her several times at Wikimedia New England events.
83:
592:
426:
If you are hell bent on ignoring my advice below where I caution against "Pinch-your-nose voting", I consider Seraphimblade and LFaraone the two neutrals I am closest to supporting, in that order.
1255:
has been an astonishing lack of willingness to think critically about core ArbCom issues, research what he does not know, and explain his views in detail. For an Arb, these are job requirements.
67:
1006:
Ks0stm looked like a good candidate, with solid if not particularly spectacular answers to the questions, and a solid if not particularly spectacular background in ArbCom related matters.
1217:
guides I follow, eight are opposing the candidate for this same reason (the ninth opposes him for a different reason), I have to think that the rest of the community shares in this view.
617:
be able to handle the workload from cases" theory, with the caveat that there are other reasons than availability of time for why some candidates don't answer all of the questions.
193:
448:
There is a tendency for people to, at the end of the elections, decide which guide was "right" based on how closely each guide matched the results of the election.
88:
424:
Once I have made a final decision, it will be reflected here. If a candidate does not appear in this section, I have not made a final decision about him or her.
130:
158:
733:
183:
659:
I am slightly unhappy with his answer to Worm That Turned's question, specifically the end of it, because I want ArbCom candidates to be proactive, (I
1156:
strongly in my discomfort with Roger Davies serving as an Arb now as I did then. I opposed the candidate's 2011 re-election largely over two motions,
932:
In short, I trust Guerillero's judgement and consider him one of the saner and more levelheaded candidates on the field, so this is an easy support.
1291:
Secret has been nothing but nice during the numerous conversations I've had with him over IRC, which makes this slightly more difficult to write.
988:
that amounts to "trust me, I'm an expert" is of little value in a forum that is designed to allow people to gauge a person's qualifications.
178:
765:
defend their decisions from people that disagree with them, and do so in a way that winds down the discussion rather than heats it up.
54:
476:
868:
468:
There are a number of alternative voting philosophies, but to be frank, I find them either to be unhealthy and ineffective.
867:
Additionally, as several other guides have pointed out, Georgewilliamherbert just isn't around very much. According to the
1083:
1195:
1137:
full cases. Poor judgement and an unbearable communication style isn't a good combination, especially not for ArbCom.
213:
143:
198:
834:
687:
indicative of AGK's work ethic, and does a much better job of explaining that angle than I am equip to write.
243:
173:
926:
218:
168:
138:
619:
Each voter should look at the questions on their own and decide what answers they want to see on their own.
148:
133:
represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion.
208:
203:
188:
223:
732:
My feelings towards Beeblebrox's candidacy have improved in the past year, but not by enough. In 2012 I
163:
47:
233:
153:
17:
1263:
1259:
297:
1082:
One concern I have (and why this is a weak rather than a full support) lies in the candidate's
288:
1172:
Roger Davies, to me, represents the danger and damage that abusing ArbCom motions can cause.
40:
950:
Behind the veneer of irrationality and odd humor (Isarra is one of the leading lights of
315:
1018:
his explanations (and backpeddaling) was just enough for me to be willing to support.
1320:
279:
306:
270:
1194:
I am concerned, however, with he candidate's propensity for inactivity (see
833:
There are two concerns I have, however. The first is that, according to the
457:
You are doing a disservice to yourself, and to the community, if you don't.
1056:
worth paying attention to (which is about half of them, for the record).
691:
are sound and clearly articulated. His answer to general question 3 is
951:
1300:
seems strange to abstain or oppose a candidate for something that
1327:
Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee Elections 2013 voter guides
25:
980:
Also, I'm slightly uncomfortable with what the candidate did
1010:
accepting a case on the issue". This isn't just wrong, it's
587:{\displaystyle Percentage={Support \over Support+Oppose}}
1296:
1252:
1161:
1157:
981:
470:
479:
1297:
Secret resigned his adminship to focus on schoolwork
455:
All guides should be looked at with a critical eye.
586:
48:
8:
1274:
1229:
55:
41:
513:
478:
263:
952:the non-Wikia version of Uncyclopedia
311:
302:
293:
284:
275:
266:
7:
453:that might not readily be apparent.
68:2013 Arbitration Committee Elections
1251:of the questions he's responded to
668:election, this is an easy support.
663:to help), rather than reactive (I
24:
314:
305:
296:
287:
278:
269:
29:
30:
1:
111:Questions for the candidates
626:My thoughts on other guides
239:The Lady Catherine de Burgh
1343:
1204:
612:Questions for candidates
79:Contact the coordinators
74:Electoral Commission RFC
444:Purpose of voter guides
927:User:Guerillero/Recall
588:
116:Discuss the candidates
1258:Oh, yeah, and he was
845:me. So I'll abstain.
589:
461:Voting for candidates
124:Personal voter guides
84:Discuss the elections
1221:Withdrawn candidates
1206:The Devil's Advocate
853:Georgewilliamherbert
835:monthly edit figures
477:
415:The Devil's Advocate
393:Georgewilliamherbert
106:Candidate statements
144:Boing! said Zebedee
1234:GregJackP - Oppose
1084:edit count figures
602:support percentage
584:
429:
18:User:Sven Manguard
1314:
1313:
1271:
1270:
1012:dangerously wrong
597:
596:
582:
427:
421:
420:
262:
254:
253:
1334:
1279:Secret - Abstain
1275:
1230:
593:
591:
590:
585:
583:
581:
537:
514:
471:
439:Opening thoughts
423:
329:
318:
309:
300:
291:
282:
273:
264:
96:
70:
57:
50:
43:
33:
32:
26:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1280:
1272:
1235:
1223:
1209:
1201:
1183:
1175:
1148:
1140:
1120:
1112:
1097:
1089:
1071:
1068:NativeForeigner
1063:
1048:
1040:
1029:
1021:
999:
991:
969:
961:
943:
935:
909:
901:
882:
874:
856:
848:
822:
814:
799:
791:
780:
772:
752:
744:
725:
717:
706:
698:
679:
671:
648:
641:
538:
515:
475:
474:
441:
435:
433:
431:
425:
355:NativeForeigner
325:
313:
304:
295:
286:
277:
268:
260:
258:
256:
250:
249:
248:
194:Volunteer Marek
126:
125:
120:
101:Candidate guide
94:
93:
66:
62:
61:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1340:
1338:
1330:
1329:
1319:
1318:
1312:
1311:
1282:
1281:
1278:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1228:
1222:
1219:
1208:
1203:
1182:
1177:
1147:
1142:
1119:
1114:
1096:
1091:
1070:
1065:
1047:
1042:
1028:
1023:
998:
993:
968:
963:
942:
937:
908:
903:
881:
879:GorillaWarfare
876:
855:
850:
821:
816:
798:
793:
779:
774:
751:
746:
724:
719:
705:
700:
678:
673:
647:
642:
640:
637:
628:
627:
614:
613:
609:
608:
605:
595:
594:
580:
577:
574:
571:
568:
565:
562:
559:
556:
553:
550:
547:
544:
541:
536:
533:
530:
527:
524:
521:
518:
512:
509:
506:
503:
500:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
463:
462:
446:
445:
440:
437:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
408:
407:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
388:
385:
382:
377:
376:
375:
372:
369:
366:
361:
360:
359:
356:
353:
348:
347:
346:
343:
342:GorillaWarfare
340:
337:
332:
331:
330:
327:None this year
320:
319:
310:
301:
292:
283:
274:
267:Strong Support
252:
251:
247:
246:
241:
236:
231:
226:
221:
216:
214:NuclearWarfare
211:
206:
201:
196:
191:
186:
184:Reaper Eternal
181:
176:
171:
166:
161:
156:
151:
146:
141:
135:
127:
123:
122:
121:
119:
118:
113:
108:
103:
97:
92:
91:
86:
81:
76:
71:
63:
60:
59:
52:
45:
37:
36:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1339:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1322:
1310:
1306:
1303:
1298:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1277:
1276:
1267:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1254:
1250:
1244:
1243:
1242:Strong Oppose
1239:
1238:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1220:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:Strong Oppose
1207:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1181:
1180:Seraphimblade
1178:
1176:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1153:
1152:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1013:
1007:
1004:
1003:
997:
994:
992:
989:
985:
983:
978:
974:
973:
967:
964:
962:
959:
955:
953:
948:
947:
941:
938:
936:
933:
930:
928:
924:
918:
914:
913:
907:
904:
902:
899:
895:
891:
887:
886:
880:
877:
875:
872:
870:
865:
861:
860:
854:
851:
849:
846:
844:
838:
836:
831:
827:
826:
820:
817:
815:
812:
808:
804:
803:
797:
794:
792:
789:
785:
784:
783:Strong Oppose
778:
775:
773:
770:
766:
763:
757:
756:
750:
747:
745:
742:
738:
735:
730:
729:
723:
720:
718:
715:
711:
710:
704:
701:
699:
696:
694:
688:
684:
683:
677:
674:
672:
669:
666:
662:
657:
653:
652:
646:
643:
638:
636:
632:
625:
624:
623:
620:
611:
610:
606:
603:
599:
598:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
563:
560:
557:
554:
551:
548:
545:
542:
539:
534:
531:
528:
525:
522:
519:
516:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
480:
473:
472:
469:
467:
460:
459:
458:
456:
451:
443:
442:
438:
436:
432:
428:
414:
411:
410:
409:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
379:
378:
374:Seraphimblade
373:
370:
367:
364:
363:
362:
357:
354:
351:
350:
349:
344:
341:
338:
335:
334:
333:
328:
324:
323:
322:
321:
317:
312:Strong Oppose
308:
299:
290:
281:
272:
265:
261:
257:
245:
242:
240:
237:
235:
232:
230:
229:Sven Manguard
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
200:
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
170:
167:
165:
162:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:
137:
136:
134:
132:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
98:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
69:
65:
64:
58:
53:
51:
46:
44:
39:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1307:
1301:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1264:topic-banned
1257:
1248:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1224:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1205:
1200:
1196:edit history
1193:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1145:Roger Davies
1144:
1139:
1133:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1100:Weak support
1099:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1081:
1077:
1074:Weak Support
1073:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1002:Weak Support
1001:
1000:
995:
990:
986:
979:
975:
971:
970:
965:
960:
956:
949:
945:
944:
939:
934:
931:
919:
915:
911:
910:
905:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
883:
878:
873:
866:
862:
858:
857:
852:
847:
842:
839:
832:
828:
824:
823:
818:
813:
809:
805:
801:
800:
795:
790:
786:
782:
781:
777:David Gerard
776:
771:
767:
761:
758:
754:
753:
748:
743:
739:
731:
727:
726:
721:
716:
712:
708:
707:
703:Arthur Rubin
702:
697:
692:
689:
685:
681:
680:
675:
670:
664:
660:
658:
654:
650:
649:
644:
633:
629:
618:
615:
601:
465:
464:
454:
449:
447:
434:
430:
422:
412:David Gerard
405:Roger Davies
381:Arthur Rubin
326:
285:Weak Support
259:
255:
228:
128:
95:Candidates:
1094:RegentsPark
796:Floquenbeam
693:outstanding
390:Floquenbeam
358:RegentsPark
244:HJ Mitchell
174:Sportsguy17
89:Quick guide
1260:sanctioned
906:Guerillero
869:edit count
762:everything
722:Beeblebrox
384:Beeblebrox
345:Guerillero
169:Rschen7754
139:Tryptofish
1266:in 2010.
1117:Richwales
923:last year
402:Richwales
209:SirFozzie
204:GregJackP
199:Bishzilla
189:Heimstern
1321:Category
1253:thus far
1045:LFaraone
819:Gamaliel
749:Bwilkins
639:Analysis
387:Bwilkins
371:LFaraone
365:Gamaliel
179:Ealdgyth
164:Jclemens
149:Hot Stop
1287:Abstain
1186:Abstain
1051:Abstain
966:Kraxler
946:Abstain
912:Support
885:Support
843:concern
825:Abstain
734:opposed
682:Support
651:Support
645:28bytes
396:Kraxler
336:28bytes
294:Abstain
276:Support
234:Collect
159:Neotarf
1151:Oppose
1123:Oppose
1032:Oppose
996:Ks0stm
972:Oppose
940:Isarra
859:Oppose
802:Oppose
755:Oppose
728:Oppose
709:Oppose
368:Isarra
352:Ks0stm
303:Oppose
224:Coffee
219:Hahc21
154:Elonka
131:guides
129:These
1302:might
16:<
1309:in.
1262:and
1160:and
1134:what
982:here
661:want
1249:all
1026:Kww
676:AGK
665:can
399:Kww
339:AGK
1323::
1162:2
1158:1
579:e
576:s
573:o
570:p
567:p
564:O
561:+
558:t
555:r
552:o
549:p
546:p
543:u
540:S
535:t
532:r
529:o
526:p
523:p
520:u
517:S
511:=
508:e
505:g
502:a
499:t
496:n
493:e
490:c
487:r
484:e
481:P
56:e
49:t
42:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.