User:Casliber/ACE09

{| width=100% style="border: 2px solid #009966; padding: 5px; background-color: #f8f8f8; font-size:95%;font-family:Trebuchet MS, sans-serif" Yeah I know, I pillaged the format from Riana who got it from Elonka's evaluation page. I don't think one who has served on the committee has done one of these before.

Given as I have been on the arbitration committee, I thought I might have some useful observations to contribute. Being on the committee involved reading up to 100 emails a day, which was fairly onerous at times but ultimately fascinating to a people-watcher like me. The committee has a good mix of doers and thinkers and for large chunks of time things progressed well. My impression was that we were able to discuss constructively when our opinions differed, which was a strength rather than a weakness - and that a balance of viewpoints and personalities is necessary for good global function. It is tricky to be too specific without breaching confidentiality but I will think more on what else I can add.

Some general comments - I am not fond of voting or highlighting on a admin vs non-admin distinction in and of itself. We should be making wikipedia as level a playing field as possible, and not promoting a class distinction. I could go off on a tangent here (which I might if someone wants to call me to task on this)....

Having been an arb, let me say that it isn't rocket science, and if a candidate has some common sense, moral rectitude, and ability to communicate with other arbs, then they'll probably do okay - there are enough people with some standout skills that things can go smoothly. I see a few people in this category who I don't know that well but will probably be a net positive.

These are all my own opinions, and hopefully will not be misinterpreted as airings of grievances, or personal attacks (too lazy to change Riana's wording and will serve me just fine). x 2 = no-doubt definite and significant benefit. x 1 = chances are they will be okay. x 0 = we-ell, good luck to them anyway and I hope my doubts are misguided.


 * 1) • questions •  vote
 * chances are will be okay
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * TBC
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * prolific content contributor. I can't imagine someone contributing this much content not being devoted to the betterment of the 'pedia. Familiarity with content also helps intimately with the development and preservation of content here.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * - Great 'doer'. Can (and did) look at 'big picture', which balanced those who deliberated more. Both views are okay and work well with dialogue.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * Highlighted civility as an issue last year, yet came up with this during a ruling on an arbitration page.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * has demonstrated cluefulness and experience - would be fine I think.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * TBC
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * - was a bulwark of organization and vital cog. I (for one) am very happy to see Kirill run again.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * - sad that relations between Kmweber and many in the community has totally sunk to this. I can't see this working out.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * chances are will be okay
 * 1) • questions •  vote
 * chances are will be okay
 * 1) • questions •  vote
 * another milhist coordinator, which means he'll be better organised than me. Looks promising.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * -sad that relations between RMHED and many in the community has totally sunk to this. I can't see this working out (yes I did cut and paste from above, but similar in many ways).
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * - I like the physicist-as-arb angle - Arbcom needs more expert editors, as they (Arbcom) are generally alright at dealing with user disputes, but content disputes require a more refined level of knowledge (bleah, Riana summed it up well - I would add that a scientific background is extremely helpful in much review of evidence in fringe science.)
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * - eminently sensible. Should be fine.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * - yes. Has a conscience and been around a while.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * TBC
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * TBC
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * chances are will be good. Content ++.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * intriguing. Cluefulness I suspect would make up for oppositionality.
 * 1)  • questions •  vote
 * chances are will be okay

Other guides

 * }