User:Elonka/ACE2012

Disclaimer: This page expresses my personal opinions and observations only.

Overview
For those who aren't sure what this is about: The Arbitration Committee is part of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. In fact, ArbCom is pretty much the last stop. For a general real world analogy, ArbCom is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. The arbitrators don't make decisions on article content, but they do issue rulings on complex disputes relating to user conduct, and they have considerable authority within the wiki-culture. Members of the committee are usually elected for two-year terms (sometimes one or three), with a new batch elected each year.

In October 2012, an RfC took place concerning the format of the 2012 elections, at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012. This year, candidates self-nominated from November 11–20. The election itself ran from November 27 until December 10. Votes are now being compiled and analyzed, and the results were posted on December 18. For this 2012/2013 cycle, seven arbitrators on the current committee will be continuing their existing terms (see the green-highlighted names in Tranche Alpha of the chart at the bottom of this page), and eight vacancies will be filled by this election. The newly elected arbitrators will all be serving 2-year terms.

This page that you are reading contains my (Elonka's) thoughts on the 2012 crop of ArbCom candidates. My general standards for a candidate are: admin access, integrity, experience with article-writing, and hands-on knowledge of the dispute resolution processes.

Candidates

 * ''Candidates self-nominated from November 11–20, 2012. Voting ran November 26 until December 10. Results were posted on December 18.


 * 1)  • questions
 *  Oppose . Has administrator and oversight access, but answers to questions were very weak. No specific links to participation in dispute resolution, and can't even appear to format the page properly. Insufficient work on articles (no FA or GA).
 * 1)  • questions
 * ✅  Weak support . Past arbitrator. I have mixed feelings on Carcharoth's candidacy. On the one hand, I think he would do a reasonable job as an arbitrator, and since he's been one before, he obviously knows what he's getting into. On the other hand, there are definitely some issues on which I disagree with him, such as I feel that he's occasionally too lenient with disruptive editors. Then again, he's clearly thinking through his opinions, which is something I respect. A larger concern is his time-available. He's been absent through much of the election, and looking through his 2012 contribs, there are multiple gaps there as well. I'd prefer to have arbitrators who are going to be able to put in the time to research a case, rather than just showing up every week or two to vote. Ultimately, I have misgivings about his candidacy, but would not be disappointed if he were to be appointed again, so I will support. --Elonka 05:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  • questions
 * ✅  Support . Administrator, checkuser, previous arbitrator
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Oppose . Not an admin.
 * 1)  • questions
 * ✅  Weak support . Past arbitrator, though not particularly active. His statement is minimal, but his answers to questions were adequate. Perhaps not the strongest candidate of the bunch this year, but he is acceptable, so I see no reason to oppose.
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Strong oppose . I was initially going to support, until it was recently revealed that Elen was involved with a leak of information from the confidential ArbCom mailing list. This appears to have been related to one or more comments by arbitrator Jclemens that she felt were inappropriate and threatening. I have reviewed the disputed email by Jclemens, and I honestly don't think that his comments are that big of a deal -- he was upset about the Committee's lack of resolve in banning an editor with longterm issues of incivility and personal attacks. It's a classic issue on the wiki, where some condone behavior from an "established" editor, that we would not condone from a new editor. But because the established editor has wiki-friends who exclaim, "But he's written good articles!" the editor somehow manages to avoid censure time after time. I'm actually in agreement with Jclemens on this matter (even though I'm opposing his candidacy), and wish the ArbCom would show more backbone in these kinds of situations. When an established editor makes it clear time and time again that they have no intention of adhering to the expected standards of conduct, it's time to ask them to leave. But getting back to Elen. She leaked information from the mailing list. She was less than truthful about what she'd done, and changed her story along the way. Her actions led to a full statement from the Arbs on the matter, and a Motion that she should be removed from the Committee altogether. To be honest, I would have expected her to resign at this point, or at least to withdraw her candidacy. That she's hanging on, I guess hoping that this all blows over, disappoints me. Even if she gets re-elected somehow, either by editors who support her, or (quite likely) editors who are unaware of the storm around her, such a win would be a Bad Thing for the project as a whole. Going into 2013, this would continually be hanging over her head, that anything said on the ArbCom list, might be passed along to a non-arb, simply because Elen might think in her own judgment that she could do this. If she continues on the Committee, the issue would remain that she would have to work with other arbitrators who have openly stated that they no longer trust her judgment. It would have a distinctly chilling effect on the ability of the other arbs to engage in discussion on confidential matters. I hope that Elen will reconsider her stance at this point, and just withdraw her candidacy. Because even if she "wins,", the damage has still been done. And the longer she tries to hang onto her position at this point, the more disruption it is causing. --Elonka 07:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Weak oppose . Arbitration clerk, OTRS, but weak answers to questions. Did not give any specific examples of statements in arbitration cases.
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Oppose . There was a scuffle involving Bishonen earlier this year. I wasn't following it, but I'd like to read through and get a sense of it before making up my mind on Jc37's candidacy. After having spent some time sifting through the case, my opinion is thusly: I have had multiple run-ins with Bishonen in the past, and am not commenting as to whether her action was or was not appropriate in this case. The way that Jc37 handled it though, was not appropriate. The lack of process was concerning, and the inability to succinctly explain the situation was also a problem. Based on what I saw, I do not believe that Jc37 would be a good choice as arbitrator, therefore I must oppose.
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Oppose . Past arbitrator, but there were numerous problems involving poor judgment and conduct unbecoming an arbitrator. He is not the worst possible choice for an arbitrator, but it is my belief that it is time for him and the Committee to part ways. I would also note that my oppose is not because of his recent comments about Malleus. Nor is my oppose because of what he said about campaigning on the ArbCom mailing list. My oppose is based on multiple other problems with things that Jclemens has said, including insensitivity that he has shown towards other editors. I am also concerned about Arbitration cases where Jclemens should have been acting as an unbiased reviewer, but clearly showed his bias for one side or the other, and then still continued to engage in the case as a voting arbitrator rather than recusing. On some things I agree with Jclemens, but there are so many other things with which I disagree, that I have to oppose.
 * 1)  • questions
 * Neutral. I do like some things about Keilana's candidacy, such as the way she handled the Muhammad images RfC (in which I was a major participant). The final decision may not have been one that I totally agreed with, but it seemed a reasonable determination of consensus in a very complex situation. I was initially going to support her for the role of arbitrator, but changed my mind after I looked deeper into the various candidates' view on civility, and how they would deal with repeatedly uncivil and disruptive editors. I am very uncomfortable with Keilana's views as expressed at User:Keilana/CERFC, specifically the part about how she feels that blocking an uncivil editor just tends to "make them more angry", so shouldn't be done. Sorry, say what? That's the kind of thing that would be said by someone enabling an abuser. Like an abused wife saying, "My husband was verbally abusive, but I didn't want to speak up, because then he just would have gotten more angry." Or in other words, that's exactly the wrong stance for an authority figure to take. I equate chronic incivility with verbal abuse. If someone is repeatedly abusive, and repeatedly violating our policies, they need to be removed from the community. It's not about "making them mad", it's about protecting the project. So, though I like some other things about Keilana's candidacy, I'm just not comfortable supporting her. --Elonka 17:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Oppose . He sounds sane, but I am concerned by his lack of experience in the dispute resolution processes. I'd rather see him learn more about how WP:DR works, such as by offering an uninvolved statement at various arbitration cases, and helping out at WP:ANI and WP:AE, before trying to jump straight into the maelstrom that is arbitration.
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Weak oppose . Kww does a lot of great things on-wiki, but I'm not sure he'd be well-suited for the role of arbitrator. Still thinking on this one though.
 * 1)  • questions
 * ✅  Support . Past arbitrator, has done a fantastic job, and I'd very much like him to continue. I anticipate that, as in the past, he will be one of the most strongly supported candidates.
 * 1)  • questions
 * ✅  Support . Arbitration clerk, OTRS. Sane.
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Oppose . Not an admin
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Oppose . Has some good qualities, but hasn't even taken the time to fully answer the candidate questions. If someone can't manage to do that, I have serious concerns about whether or not they could handle the workload of being an arbitrator.
 * 1)  • questions
 * ✅  Support . Perhaps not one of the better known Wikipedians on the project, but he appears thoughtful and articulate, with experience in both content creation and dispute resolution. I think he'd make a good arb.
 * 1)  • questions
 * ✅  Support . Checkuser, oversight, and member of the Audit Committee. I'm a bit concerned that he has a somewhat weak stance on civility, but that's just one aspect of an arb's job. For the spectrum of other issues, he appears a strong candidate.
 * 1)  • questions
 * ✅  Support . Ample experience as an administrator "in the trenches" with arbitration enforcement. He'll bring valuable insight to the Committee.
 * 1)  • questions
 * ✅  Support . Administrator, oversight. Ran in 2011, received 59% support (1% away from cutoff). See 2011 questions. Looks to have gained experience since then, and is a stronger candidate this year.
 * 1)  • questions
 *  Oppose . Not an admin.

Past elections
To see my thoughts on previous elections, check the history of:
 * User:Elonka/ACE2008
 * User:Elonka/ACE2009
 * User:Elonka/ACE2010
 * User:Elonka/ACE2011