User:Heimstern/ACE2009

Sigh. Here we go again.

Where I'm coming from: Wikipedia has failed to establish a proper way to deal with POV-pushers. A lone POV-pusher is dealt with easily enough: he or she is outnumbered by policy-abiding editors and has to give up or gets banned for edit warring. POV-pushers in large groups, as they inevitably are in nationalist disputes, where dozens of cybernationalists are waiting in the wings to fight for the motherland, are able to tag team to avoid edit warring blocks and to filibuster on talk pages to tire out editors who argue for neutrality.

In spring of this year, I learnt firsthand about how thoroughly ArbCom has failed in this way, as well as its limited successes, when I was a party to WP:ARBMAC2. In its utterly farcical decisions to desysop ChrisO and Future Perfect at Sunrise, it let the entire community know that opposing nationalists is gambling with one's sysop bit and that civility is ultimately more important than neutrality.

By contrast, the committee's decision in the same case to establish a binding content resolution procedure for the Macedonia naming dispute was a definite step in the right direction. The refereed discussion they establish allowed for the Wikipedia consensus model to actually work correctly, with opinions not counted as mere votes, but with arguments actually weighed for validity and compliance with Wikipedia policy. With no referees, this cannot happen, and it inevitably breaks down to a question of numerical support, because whichever side has the highest numbers automatically wins because its members make fewer reverts each and don't get blocked.

The second Macedonia case has caused me to be more cautious with my vote than ever before. I am looking specifically for users who are willing to actually look at workable ways to resolve content disputes (without actually making any rulings itself on how articles should read). I am also not looking for more civility police. I'm all for a civil atmosphere, but nationalists are using that policy as a cudgel against other editors by baiting them into incivility and then getting the other editors sanctioned for it. Civility is not going to build an encyclopedia for us. Neutrality and verifiability are more important any day.

I'm basing my vote heavily on answers to the questions I asked and on my knowledge of the editors in question. I'm being harsher than in the past due to serious concerns about the direction of the committee.

AGK
Leaning support at this point. I've generally found him trustworthy, and his answers to my questions about nationalist disputes and content/conduct are some of the best I've ever seen. The degree of "getting it" seems really high. Still want to research a couple things, though.

Going to support.

Cla68
Leaning oppose. I hate to do so to a content contributor, but his assertion "If I see an admin tell a non-admin to 'F-off', I'm going to propose a desysop" is concerning. That kind of non-nuanced view is exactly what led the ArbCom to foolishly temporarily desysop one of Wikipedia's most dedicated administrators who said "Fuck off, idiot" in reply to user's ethinically charged sarcastic baiting of said admin. Not something I want to see happen again.

Coren
Need to ponder this one a bit. I've found his arbitration votes better than par for the committee, which in and of itself makes me strongly consider giving him another chance. Still, he's had some bad moments, such as supporting ChrisO's desysop.

Going to go with supporting.

Fred Bauder
Before I say "per all the other guides I've seen": Actually, sometimes I was surprised how much I agreed with Fred during his earlier tenure. But those times were substantially less than the times he made me want to pull out my hair. No, sorry. Don't want history to repeat itself this way.

Fritzpoll
Did a pretty respectable job refereeing the Macedonia discussion. Leaning support.

Hersfold
Seems to indicate the only sanctions he's willing to give for users violating content policies are admonishments. I'm sorry, nationalists do not give a damn about admonishments. You ban them or you might as well not sanction them. That answer militates against a support.

Jehochman
Really dang hard to decide. On the one hand, he seems to get it in terms of stopping disruptive editors and really making decisions for the encyclopedia and not an abstract code of conduct. On the other hand, he can be overly combative and patronizing. Still need to think it through.

I have decided to vote support. I don't believe it will make a difference, as I don't think he can win. Please read this vote as a vote for a tougher approach to POV-pushers.

Kirill Lokshin
Probably support. I didn't always agree with Kirill, but he was generally close to the mark. Particularly appreciated his contribution to ARBMAC2.

Kmweber
Honestly, I'm beginning to be sympathetic to Kurt's platform. I don't agree that ArbCom has no legitimacy because it didn't originate from the community, but I do believe it has done a great deal to delegitimize itself by neglecting the encyclopedia writers and defenders. Still, in the end, we need a binding system of dispute resolution, so we can't kill off ArbCom, as much as we might like to. So no.

KnightLago
I believe KnightLago did an exceedingly shoddy job of clerking at ARBMAC2, notably his decision to block Horologium for an off comment while letting SQRT5P1D2 insinuate whatever the bloody hell he felt like all over the damn workshop. No thanks. ArbCom doesn't need folks like that.

Mailer diablo
A good editor with his heart in the right place, but his answers to the questions show he clearly doesn't understand the content problems the community faces. "I think the community is currently sufficiently empowered to enforce content policies and consensus without having ArbCom to intervene" is so wrong I don't even know where to begin except to say "Read ARBMAC2". Must oppose.

MBK004
His platform is solid, and the answers to the questions are pretty reasonable. Good article contribs are also making me lean support.

RMHED
To give credit where it's due, I've had more fun reading his answers to the questions than I've had on Wikipedia in a long time! Does that merit a support vote? Probably not.

Ruslik0
Answers to the questions aren't convincing, in part because they're so short. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it's not always the soul of clarity. I'm not convinced by this candidacy.

Secret
Hasn't really shown a lot of signs in the past of the maturity needed for an arb.

Seddon
My immediate thought is that Seddon does not have the free time needed to be an arb, given that he still hasn't answered many of the general questions.

Shell Kinney
Like Fritzpoll, seemed to do well refereeing (though I regret that the third referee, J.delanoy, isn't running, as I think he'd be an especially good candidate).

SirFozzie
Fozzie's very well-meaning, but I'm concerned about his answer to a question. When I asked him about the idea of binding content resolution, he said that "I'd need to see evidence that the parties are willing and able to enter such a binding mediation before it happens..." This just isn't good enough. Sometimes we need people to end up in it involuntarily. Nationalists often don't want to mediate; they just want to keep posturing the talk page and edit warring. They know, furthermore, that one post on an appropriate forum will bring a dozen new voices on their side. A discussion like what was done at for Macedonia forces them to adhere to Wikipedia content policy and not just vote. Therefore, many of them resist the idea. Doing this sort of thing only when it's voluntary isn't going to solve the problem.

Steve Smith
I'm just not comfortable with Steve's approach to civility; he's struck me as far too policeman-like. Even though he's said he doesn't issue civility blocks, I'm concerned about whether he'll treat it properly in ArbCom cases and punish incivility strongly while avoiding more weighty matters that are central to the encyclopedia. A second look, per a discussion with the candidate, has left me highly conflicted. His platform is actually really good in lots of areas. Honestly, my brain says support, my gut says oppose. Not sure which is correct. If anyone happens to have a crystal ball I could use to see his votes and rulings if he were on the committee, I'd really appreciate it.

I've decided to follow the endorsement of two of Wikipedia's finest admins at stopping POV-pushers and support Steve, reversing my previous decision. I pray I'm right.

Unomi
Has left several questions unanswered, and seems pretty new to the community for ArbCom purposes.

Wehwalt
Other voter guides I'm reading make me think my opinion is going to be unpopular, but I am opposing Wehwalt. He has stated that he will sanction users only for conduct violations, not content policy violations. This is absolutely unacceptable to me. If only conduct policy can be enforced via sanctions at the highest level of dispute resolution, the effect is that the conduct policies are hierarchified above content policies, which is ass-backward.

William M. Connolley
The handling of his ArbCom case was indeed pretty poor (in particular, the fact that an arbitrator, who, thank goodness, is exiting the committee soon, included in his vote a complete misrepresentation of my actions and did not change it after a good two weeks' notice); still, I can't really look past his ill-considered block of Abd. I just can't support after that.

Xavexgoem
Platform as a whole and answers to questions are a bit less than convincing to me.