User:HJ Mitchell/ACE2012

My thoughts on the 2012 Arbitration Committee candidates.

Candidates

 * oversight, sysop, 60958 edits since: 2007-07-21
 * My vote: Support

Sensible guy. Somewhat eccentric, but it can be useful to have somebody who thinks a little differently. Has patience, within reason, but isn't known for tolerating bullshit.


 * sysop, 61978 edits since: 2005-01-08
 * My vote: Support

Experienced former arb; safe pair of hands. Has a good memory for facts, cases, etc and takes time to review things before making a decision. Would definitely be an asset on the committee.


 * abusefilter, checkuser, sysop, 17482 edits since: 2003-05-27
 * My vote: Oppose

Was a letter-of-the-law policy wonk as an arb; perhaps he's mellowed in the last year, but when was the last time he edited an article? Statement says very little about his views on any specific subject.


 * reviewer, 8330 edits since: 2004-11-28
 * My vote: Oppose

Not enough experience, attempting to politicise the process, throwaway statement ... take your pick.


 * checkuser, oversight, sysop, 31784 edits since: 2005-10-15
 * My vote: Undecided


 * checkuser, oversight, sysop, 16151 edits since: 2008-05-11
 * My vote: Undecided

I'll probably support Elen. I'm not a fan of the current committee, but Elen is a sensible lady.


 * sysop, 12026 edits since: 2009-11-05
 * My vote: Probable oppose

I have nothing personal against Guerillero. He strikes me as a decent, well-meaning guy. But he also strikes me as naive (see, for example, his answers to the questions) and my impression of ArbCom clerks in general is that they do things because they're told to rather than as a result of independent thought. Perhaps with another year or two and a bit more experience I might support him.


 * sysop, 38758 edits since: 2006-02-12
 * My vote: Oppose

Abrupt, superficial answers to questions. No clear statement on what he would bring to ArbCom. Apparently doesn't understand what wheel warring is.


 * checkuser, oversight, sysop, 35530 edits since:
 * My vote: Oppose

Absolutely not. There are plenty of reasons, but the "not a Wikipedian" comment was grossly inappropriate and not the standard of conduct I expect from an arbitrator.


 * sysop, 49067 edits since: 2007-04-29
 * My vote: Support

Not a name I'm familiar with, but seems sensible and does good work. And a content-writer's perspective would be a useful thing on ArbCom.


 * sysop, 10351 edits since: 2007-05-29
 * My vote: Probable support

Lacks something in experience, but makes up for it in common sense—a quality that has been lacking this year.


 * abusefilter, sysop, 63299 edits since: 2007-01-09
 * My vote: Oppose

Nice guy, great admin, no question of his dedication to the project, and he does some of the least pleasant admin tasks out there. But he's a hothead, and doesn't have the calm, rational, analytical personality that arbitration needs.


 * checkuser, oversight, sysop, 31159 edits since: 2006-02-25
 * My vote: Probable support

Does good work, and displays empathy and humanity. Some would say he's too lenient, but I tend to think that excess leniency is preferable to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


 * abusefilter, oversight, sysop, Global_rollback, 80129 edits since: 2007-10-30
 * My vote: Support

NW does valuable work in various areas. I've worked with him a AE and he's always struck me as sensible. No reason to think that he wouldn't make a good arbitrator.


 * autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 9737 edits since: 2008-01-25
 * My vote: Undecided

Maybe. Not sure he has a great deal of experience and I'm a little uncomfortable electing a non-admin, but his answers would suggest he's a sensible guy.


 * sysop, 16677 edits since: 2007-07-18
 * My vote: Support

Very sensible admin who always takes time to evaluate a situation and deciding on the best solution rather than diving in head first. Worked with him on closing the RfC on WP:V.


 * sysop, 10829 edits since: 2005-03-06
 * My vote: Undecided

Another maybe. Sensible answers to questions, so I might just support. Need to look at his answers, contribs, etc in more detail.


 * checkuser, oversight, sysop, 33206 edits since: 2009-12-10
 * My vote: Undecided

Not sure on Salvio. I like the guy, and I think he's a good admin and very good in the other positions he occupies, but I worry that he sees things in black and white and not the shades of grey which give rise to arbitration cases.


 * abusefilter, sysop, 31566 edits since: 2005-12-31
 * My vote: Undecided

Very similar to Salvio in some ways. Not sure he sees the shades of grey that lead to arbitration cases, but he does excellent work at AE (where I've worked with him and held him in high regard) nad we could do with at least one arbitrator who understands the headaches caused for admins at AE by badly drafted remedies.


 * oversight, sysop, 13929 edits since: 2008-07-13
 * My vote: Support

Yes. Dave "gets it" in a way I can't quite put my finger on. He has the right balance of empathy and compassion versus a desire to end needless disruption. He also has an understanding of what Wikipedia is like for editors just setting out on their "career", which will hopefully provide valuable insight on the committee.


 * 4570 edits since: 2006-02-12
 * My vote: Oppose

Just .... no.