User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/AC2012

Alphabetical list of candidates and recommendations
I refine the standard evaluations (support, neutral, oppose) with  modifiers (strongly, wisely, politically, etc.) so  that the evaluation-categories' alphabetical order is consistent with my evaluation. ("Wisely" was chosen for alphabetical reasons only.)

The list contains question marks (?, ??) according to my likelihood of mistake! Please review other guides and look at the candidate's behaviour (for example, 2 years ago) in making your own decision!

Recommendations
I am pleased that my top candidates enjoy nearly unanimous support (among the guide authors). There are another 3-5 candidates who could also do a good job.

It should be obvious that I evaluate the candidates almost entirely by their years of editing. I disregard their candidate statements, except Richwales's claim that he is making the NPOV-pillar one of his two central themes.... The candidates' responses to personal questions are revealing and have also been consulted.

1. RegentsPark
RegentsPark writes articles, mediates content disputes, and is one of the most helpful persons with resolving issues at ANI. RegentsPark has been invaluable in helping to maintain civility and productive editing on articles related to Pakistan and India, one of the toughest proving grounds for administrators.

SandyGeorgia has a good discussion of RegentsPark's virtues on 2012 Wikipedia controversies.



2. Timotheus Canens
Endorsed by Casliber and Sandy Georgia. 'Nuff said.



3. Nuclear Warfare
Long serving clerk to ArbCom and an administrator noted for professionalism and calmness. I rank him high strategically, because he is new. Non-strategically, I would rate him just below the   returning arbs I support. 22:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

4. Elen of the Roads
Good heart, sound head, winning personality.

Outside of ArbCom duty, she is active in mediating and settling disputes, sometimes with a soft voice and other times by cracking a whip (that needed to be cracked).

Even if she makes a misstep, she does it with such intelligence and style that it is a pleasure to watch, at least in retrospect.... (At my RfC/U, I asked her to resign from ArbCom and as an administrator and she declared me a "net negative" and predicted my banning, I think.)

Like NewYorkBrad and Casliber, Elen has maturity and gravitas---the ability to speak with her own voice, even when alone against a crowd, and immediately improve a discussion.

5. Newyorkbrad
NYB has earned 80% support from the community in previous elections, and there is no reason to vote against him, and many reasons to support him.

One caveat: I don't understand how he could have signed the "Civility Enforcement" decision, which made an unwarrantedly expansive reading of WP:Disruptive..., given his intelligence and principle.



Support
These four deserve to be elected.

1. Guerillero
I supported him to become an administrator in 2011, and he has been good, in my memory at least. He has also volunteered as a clerk for ArbCom, and so won an endorsement from editor  User:Reaper Eternal, whose judgement I trust.



2. Carcharoth
A former arbitrator, recruited by Newyorkbrad, supported by nearly all and opposed by none (known to me).



3. Worm That Turned
My 2011 guide stated that I looked forward to seeing Worm That Turned earn the community's trust and win election in 2012. Thus I am pleased to support him now. (Truth be told, my opposition with great likelihood resulted in his losing the election....)

He is a young man who is unusually mature and who is growing every month. He still makes mistakes, but he learns from his mistakes more than anybody I've seen on Wikipedia. He has served as clerk this last year (for part of the year) and so is familiar with many aspects of ArbCom.

In 5 years, he shall be an even better candidate, but I think that he can contribute this year. If he shall make a mistake on ArbCom, it will be because he will be impatient to resolve a problem, that may be better left unresolved.... Some problems should be accepted as inevitable parts of community life, of course. Cunard spotlighted this problem with WTT: Like this year's ArbCom, Worm That Turned misuses "disruption" informally, rather than according to the policy on WP:Disruptive editing, as shown by the diffs and his responses to Cuncard's questions, also in the second round.

Note that Cunard supports WTT. I wish that the exchange with Cunard will spur WTT to review his past and present positions on "disruption", particularly his labeling Cunard's RfA editing as disruptive (for Sigma's RfA). A year or so ago, WTT's statements on RfA as a process were more troublesome (although we usually agreed on candidates)....



4. Coren
Long-standing and computing-savy former member of ArbCom. Coren helped to save mathematics on Wikipedia by improving this decision. Everything else is peanuts.



Political support (neutral)
I would urge editors to vote in support of most of these candidates, to prevent a lesser qualified candidate take their place.

1. Pgallert
A thoughtful editor who is not an administrator. Obviously smart and articulate, Pgallert avoids cliches. In previous years, I would have supported Pgallert. If Pgallert does not get elected, perhaps clerking at ArbCom would be beneficial to all.

2. Kww
Kww gets to the point, with no distractions about apple-pie, motherhood, and the flag (e.g., NPOV), etc. This shows confidence and self-awareness, and is refreshing. It would be intellectually deadening to have an ArbCom filled only with policy paraphrasers.

The concern is his ability to collaborate with other ArbCom members. At least arbitrator Coren has been impressed with Kww, and an endorsement from Coren suggests we all consider Kww especially thoughtfully, rather than just reject an unconventional personality.



Oppose with regrets (neutral)
My parenthetical "neutral" attempted to show great respect to these three, whom I opposed this year because there were so many qualified candidates, 8 of whom seemed safer. I would have no concern were any or all of them to be elected. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  09:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. David Fuchs
Since (at least May), David Fuchs has contributed little to discussions at ArbCom, often showing up to add support to popular motions at the end of deliberations. His support of banning Malleus did include an insult, which was especially inappropriate at a case on civility enforcement; in this case, he failed to disassociate himself from JClemens's and AGK's insults.

Now there are many candidates who are likely to be much more capable of assessing evidence, deliberating the case, and formulating findings. Voting is only a small part of an arbitrator's work.

On the other hand, Sandy Georgia notes that David Fuchs stood up for fairness and decency in the Featured Article process case. This kind of backbone is so rare on Wikipedia that it raises David Fuchs from strong oppose to neutral.

Former arbitrator (and former punchline of Stephen Colbert) Wizardman noted that David Fuchs keeps himself busy with unbanning request work, which is done off wiki. This is an important merit.



2. Keilana
SandyGeorgia's strong opposition is based on solid evidence.
 * Like many RfA nominations, Keilana's RfA nomination of Rlevse was glib and riddled with cliched falsehoods; I did support the Rlevse's RfA weakly, since " Saul did become Paul". Glib writing is not what we want from ArbCom.

SandyGeorgia also discusses her FA articles, etc. Rschen raises similar concerns, without the diffs....

However, I retain my judgment, overall.

Good writer of articles, including science and women. Seems like a calm and clear leader on administrator tasks. Her talk page shows endorsements and encouragement from many administrators whose judgment I trust.

Because of her productivity and fire-fighting at drama boards (rather than pyrotechnics), she has a relatively low profile.



3. Salvio guiliano
Salvio is experienced as a bureaucrat and ArbCom clerk, and I'm sure that he would be an asset to the committee work, and in most other years Salvio would have had my support.

However, I don't sense the same degree of thoughtful independence in Salvio that I do in Kww and Pgallert. On English Wikipedia, he has little experience with writing, editing, or assessing articles, and he has little experience with mediation (as opposed to using administrative tools within policy).
 * On a good committee, Salvio might be better able to help to pass common-sense decisions and especially to perform the behind-the-scenes work which occupies a lot of time (e.g., with requests from banned editors to accept a standard offer).
 * On a bad committee, Salvio might be more liable to support bad decisions.

(My (now revised) evaluation was acknowledged by Sven Manguard, who supports Salvio as his eighth choice. Readers should examine Sven's analysis.)

Also, I have trouble spelling "Salvio guiliano"! ;D

Salvio could draft resolutions
If Salvio is not elected, I would ask that members of ArbCom consider asking Salvio to try his hand in drafting a resolution, perhaps to be presented by another ArbCom member for public viewing. Such draftings are typically done by law clerks in the US, and the experience of drafting resolutions would be beneficial to Salvio and to his future candidacies.

To grant Salvio permission to engage in discussion, at least as an experiment on one selected case, might also be beneficial; I understand that letting all the clerks comment on all the cases could create headaches.... Kiefer .Wolfowitz  18:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the comment of Newyorkbrad, who shared his experience on non-administrator drafting.



Oppose
These candidates have many positive features, and so I would urge each voter to make his own investigation here. For these candidates, the guides disagree, and so we all need to think carefully. :)

1. Richwales
Richwales is running on two pillars, civility and NPOV. Raising NPOV, which is supported by all, is a distraction.

In the 2012 ArbCom case entitled "civility enforcement", Rich Wales seemed to criticize only Malleus. A principled leader of the community should have addressed at least some of the incivility and personal attacks against Malleus. I double-checked the extensive discussion to see whether Rich was even-handed in any of the proceedings, but found nothing; when I asked Rich to provide an example of once restraining the behavior of an ally in the case against Malleus---or in any other heated discussion, he gave no examples, but instead gave a list of his contributions to the Civility Enforcement, writing that the community could judge him based on his record and previous statements.

My review of the ArbCom case and his self-nomination raises a strong concern that he would be even more one-sided in civility enforcement than the existing ArbCom, which at least showed some notice that there was "uneven" enforcement of the civility policy.

I am also concerned that Rich has so far ignored procedural questions of ArbCom: In Civility Enforcement, From these three issues, I suppose that almost everybody can agree that one was a real issue, and perhaps nearly half would agree that two raise concern.
 * 1) the topic of the case had a wide scope, but the decision was focused narrowly (and one sidedly) on Malleus.
 * 2) The administrator who filed the case (User:Alexandria) has been (self-requested?) blocked by Hersfold, who did not recuse himself or declare any relation to the community; in contrast, Elen and NewYorkBrad recused themselves, and CasLiber discussed recusing himself (asking for feedback). (Alexandria later reversed the block for violating NPA on JClemens.)
 * 3) The request for clarification turned into a circus, with most of the committee supporting a de facto ban of Malleus, before some sense was restored.

Frankly, Richwales will do a great job 90% of the time. However, I believe that he could be like Hersold and AGK (and many more outside of ArbCom) pushing a schoolboy understanding of civility (focusing on naughty words, rather than on overall behavior) ahead of the other pillars.

In his guide, Arbitrator Coren suggests that Richwales would be a stronger candidate after a year of e.g. clerking, an excellent suggestion.

2. Ks0stm
A new (2011) administrator, and so inexperienced. Wait a few years. He seems to have been calm and a good influence as an administrator, and so in other years I would have considered endorsing him.

3. Beeblebrox
Beeblebrox's history of closing discussions as supporting his opinion rather than as "no consensus" led to his Request for Bureaucratiship's failure. Making policy is appropriate for community-discussion leaders but not for ArbCom.

Beeblebrox has weak experience with writing or assessing articles, according to Elonka, and this suggests that he will have trouble with complicated article-disputes. Similarly, Beeblebrox's weak content experience and temperament problems warrant the oppose by Ealdgyth.

Beeblebrox is similar to JClemens in having a propensity to insult editors, etc., according to Sven Manguard. SandyGeorgia suggests that other editors may better restore a good working-environment at ArbCom. Also, Beeblebrox is not strong at dispute resolution, suggests Reaper Eternal.

Finally, Beeblebrox's answers to questions appear to be evasive.

Update: Beeblebrox seems to have been a primary author of the current RfC/Civility "questionnaire", whose stupidity and dishonesty have been explained by enough independent editors
 * (e.g. for "bias" and lack of "competence" Risker— but see Risker's dissent from being cited updated21:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC))

already. If I had bothered to pay attention to it, beyond denouncing the incompetence and unethical behavior of its authors, then I would have of course strongly opposed Beeblebrox, and warned you all about Beeblebrox's agenda and character/ability. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC) A review of the other guides shows that none of the other authors discussed the (obviously unethical and incompetent) questionnaire, which I think shows the contempt with which it was viewed by serious editors; the talk pages associated with it are filled with complaints, many of which use language unconstrained by my moderation. I don't add links to it, per my contempt. 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)



-1 YOLO Swag
The rhetoric disqualifies him, as does his editing history (noted by User:Kurtis).

-2. Jclemens
Jclemens has used his position on Arbcom to abuse editors and to intimidate administrators at SPI, as documented by Ealdgyth and Heimstern.

He has no place in any position of authority on Wikipedia, save the authority he has earned as a writer of quality articles, especially on health articles. His seat would be better filled by a new arbitrator.



-3. Jc37
JClemens is at least smart and is aware when his beliefs are deviant and so moderates his discourse unless he feels its time to drop a bomb---which is at least entertaining (like an Ed Wood) and sometimes informative (like Chomsky or Camille Paglia).

In contrast, Jc37 would just waste the valuable time of members of ArbCom, and make it even more difficult to keep active members and recruit new ones.

Jc37 failed his RfB because of numerous limitations: Repeated asking of many inane questions at RfAs, focus on civility-policing at ANI, etc. Elonka notes his problems with explaining his actions as an administrator; Jc37's ArbCom case had no acceptances by arbitrators, 6 declines and only 1 abstain, suggesting that he has trouble understanding the role of ArbCom. Similarly, two editors with whom I've had several disagreements Wehwalt and Bishonen, asked simple but damning questions, which Jc37 could not answer (properly imho) or would not (22:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)).

In the Featured Article case, Jc37's intellectually deadly statements disqualify him, also, as noted by SandyGeorgia.



Understanding and curiosity

 * ArbComm has to read a lot of material, often revolving around content disputes, and so its members must have a good education, simply to keep up, and especially to make wise decisions.
 * Having written GA/FA articles or reviewed GA/FA articles on traditional encyclopedia topics are important merits, showing intellectual power.
 * ArbComm members carry big sticks---and I can show you my bruises---so their public whispers cause hurricanes on Wikipedia. Clear writing is essential, and "negative capability"---silence when we have nothing good to say---is desirable.

Experience, being necessary for mature judgement (Nicomachean Ethics 1142a)
ArbCom is a terrible job, so the volunteers should deserve some appreciation for their hard work. Many members quit, because of the work load and the bitching and moaning of the herd of independent minds called "the community".

Thus, good ArbCom experience is an important merit. Good experience on intellectually and politically demanding committees is another great merit. As a rule, new administrators or editors (having the community's trust) without long experience should not be on ArbCom.

Justice and WP:Boomerang
Many writers who are not administrators have contempt for the Administrator Noticeboard and have lost confidence with the Arbitration Committee, simply because of the failure of administrators evenly to apply Wikipedia's civility and no-personal-attacks policy. The essay Boomerang, which reminds editors not to file complaints unless they want to be held accountable for their own behavior, is not even a guideline (and certainly not a policy).

In this year's Civility Enforcement case, ArbCom announced that it would hear a wide-ranging case on Civility Enforcement, but instead chose to sanction only Malleus Faturoum, even though there was plenty of evidence against others, particularly those attacking Malleus repeatedly. Nobody was sanctioned for conducting campaigns of abuse. Besides wasting the community's time and ignoring the evidence submitted about uneven enforcement, this action had the appearance that the proceedings were a bread-and-circuses show, while the real decision was made by the committee in private. Indeed, former arbitrator Iridescent correctly predicted the final votes just by knowing the members of the committee!

Administrators and arbitrators should not be so partisan that they ignore evidence of abuse by their friends and allies and solely target their opponents. Administrators and arbitrators should not be so intellectually lazy or partisan that they do not investigate the context of diffs at ANI or ArbCom, and sanction all guilty parties, particularly abusive administrators.

ArbCom needs to prioritize justice.

Summary of guides to ArbCom elections
Summary chart by Ealdgyth

Monty's good-faith prohibition of any summary table from the template was based on his premature reading of an RfC in progress, which did not find consensus for such a prohibition. I corrected one POV problem with his wording, but failed to remove the prohibition. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  09:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Posterity should note Gerda Arendt's honor role:

candidate names with coming to my attention as awesome Wikipedians, worthy of Precious, in chronological order:
 * 26 February
 * 29 March
 * 19 April
 * 22 April
 * 13 May
 * 14 June
 * 4 August
 * 19 October
 * 25 November
 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  14:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Results
Following the voting period, the scrutineers will examine the votes, and will release a tally of the results. The tally will rank candidates by level of support, defined as the number of votes cast in support of the candidate divided by the total number of votes cast for the candidate ("no vote" preferences are not counted). A total of 858 editors cast votes this election, and 824 votes were determined to be valid.

Ellen deserved more support, but I am pleased that only qualified candidates were elected. Also, the good showing by Guerrillero and Regents Park reflect well on the voters. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Abilities: Role-playing game
Remember that 10 represents average human ability, so everything above 10 is a (sincere) compliment.