User:John Vandenberg/ACE/2011 guides

This is a meta guide of sorts. The last major revision was on 2011-11-29T09:10:11‎.

With so many guides not providing eight supports to fill the committee vacancies, the meta guide User:Monty845/ACE2011 is useless. User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2011/Guides is good.


 * Scott MacDonald: waiting...
 * Carcharoth: waiting...
 * Ealdgyth: oppose: Guide not as good as last year. This year Ealdgyth supports four (4), and is neutral on five (5).  It's a useful read with some good data points to consider, but as a guide is almost useless.  There are eight empty seats, so the neutral votes in this guide may as well be considered to be a support, especially when compared side-by-side with the other guides as is done at User:Monty845/ACE2011.  In additional, guide says it puts weight on content edits, but the actual votes dont appear to follow that approach, and vary from it without any decent explanation.
 * Hipocrite: oppose: Breaking from tradition, Hipocrite innovates with the scoring system, driven by a single issue, but the scoring system fails with three (3) supports, four (4) opposes, and throws out all the existing arbs. The guide writer should be forced to be identified to the WMF, and then read and scrub arbcom-l to ensure the public can read it all!
 * Elonka: support: Elonka's guides have had a consistent theme over the years. Admins only; prior experience desirable; etc.  Tends to select candidates who grasp the job ahead of time, and will do the hard work on the committee.
 * Guerillero: oppose: Guerillero supports four (4), is neutral on three (3) and opposes the most obvious four (4), leaving six off the radar.
 * Master&Expert: support. The guidewriter can count to eight, and the reasons are genuine and interesting.
 * Badger Drink: neutral: some good points sprinkled through it, and he manages to pick eight candidates to support. A bit too self-absorbed, but that's understandable when you're exerting a lot of effort pretending to not look at an RFC sporting your pretend-name.
 * Heimstern: weak oppose: Heimstern supports four (4), opposes five (5) and is hard to read on the rest. Heimstern has offered good questions and insight on past elections, so bookmark this guide to the see which candidates are capable of dealing with the large-scale nationalistic edit-wars that arbcom is blessed with each year.
 * HJ Mitchell: support: This guide is complete and has seven supports.
 * Sven Manguard: mild support: Sufficiently detailed, but a few of the votes are based on cases related to arbitration issues which Sven is involved with. That he also built a meta guide while I was writing mine shows obvious clue ;-)
 * Joe Gazz84: neutral: Joe Gazz84 supports six (6), opposes five (5), is neutral on one (1), and abstains on four (4).
 * Kiefer.Wolfowitz: support: This user participated in the Monty Hall problem arbitration case, which may cause aspects of the case to dominate their opinions regarding the incumbent arbitrators seeking re-election. The arbtrators who were inactive on that case have gotten off scott free.
 * NuclearWarfare: strong support: NuclearWarfare knows arbitration well, and also has the internal fortitude to point out problems in or around the committee's work. With only six (6) supports, I'd prefer he supports one more.  NuclearWarfare was one of two 'winners' of last year's guides
 * RegentsPark: strong support: RegentsPark has identified eight (8) supports, seven (7) supports, and neutral on two (2). A moderate set of choices combined with some new blood.
 * SandyGeorgia: support: Only five (5) supports so far, and three (3) abstains still.
 * William M. Connolley: oppose: Four (4) supports, no neutrals or abstains, and opposes the rest. Primary interest is in his own cases.  If this was jury selection, WMC just ran out of jurors to select from.
 * Wizardman: strong support: Wizardman knows how to call it. He was one off the leaders last year.
 * CT Cooper: blink: two (2) supports! why bother.
 * Volunteer Marek: sigh: A big let down after the high of last year's most influential guide
 * Rschen7754: grumble: This perennial guide, and the questions which underpin it, doth bug the hell out of me. Please read tea leaves instead.  The guidewriter has buried their vote in a hard to read format.  They support eight (8), neutral on five (5) and oppose four (4).