User:Piotrus/ACE2010

General thoughts, or what I consider important in the candidates

 * In a nutshell, I look for those three qualities: experience as a content creator, lack of banhammer addiction and activity.

Arbitration Committee is important both in what it does and does not; on the most basic and important level, its decisions, for better or worse, shape who is allowed to build an encyclopedia. Ensuring that the sitting committee is as committed to the goal of building an encyclopedia as possible is, I believe, the duty of every wiki citizen. And here you have what I see as the first important quality of a good arbitrator: experience in content creation (this can be quickly judged by this counter, with the obvious disclaimer that numbers are never the whole story).

Not all content creators are good ArbCom material, of course. Experience can be used wisely - or wasted. What I consider a wise use of one's experience here is understanding that it is easy to ban/block an editor - but it is much more difficult (yet much more beneficial to the project) to reform them. We don't need more "banhammer-happy" arbitrators (or administrators); not every problem is a nail in need of being hammered, and making a desert and calling it peace is not going to help this project. Without going into this in too much detail for what is supposed to be a brief intro to my candidate guide, I believe there is a positive correlation between banhammer-friendly attitude among wiki arbitrators (and administrators) and the stabilization in the number of active English Wikipedia editors. Too trigger-happy applications of bans, instead of attempting to mentor or reform editors, is making them leave (or radicalize and become sock-using vandals and such). While this deserves serious academic attention, my cursory look at Polish Wikipedia's ArbCom suggests that that Wikipedia can solve its problems with very few bans or blocks (and while at this point I do not have date on its editor trends compared to the English one, at the very least, being the 4th biggest in the world, it is not doing bad, and its article growth trend looks at least as good as ours). There is, I believe, a certain comparison to be made between English Wikipedia, being (for obvious reasons) heavily influenced by the editors from the United States background, and the inefficient US penal system (did you know that US has the world's highest incarceration rate...?). But I digress :)

Activity is another important factor. Too many cases drag too long, too often parties don't receive timely (or any) responses to their queries. A good arbitrator should be very active (edits/day, active editing days/year), and should have a good record of responding to queries (sadly, this is difficult to track; for sitting arbitrators we really need a "contact this arbitrator" button which would keep track of "queries replied to"... but I digress here again).

Disclaimer, or why you should take my words with a gram of salt
(Taken from AGK's disclaimer) This guide contains my personal views on the candidatures of this year's elections. Although written in good faith, it is derived from my biases and experiences. All voters should consider this and all other guides with extreme care, and should base their votes on their own estimations of a candidate's suitability to sit on the Committee.

(And now for something more personal) ) My experience with the Committee dates to this 2005 case. While I have never filled in a case, I have observed several, been a party to others, and been subject to several remedies. Those experiences are a two-edged sword: on the constructive side, I am quite familiar with how the Committee works, yet still a relative outsider to the wikipolitics-power-structure; but on the less-then-constructive side, those very same personal experiences have biased me, both positively and negatively, towards certain procedural and personal elements of the Arbitration process (so, caveat lector - you have been warned).

Candidates, or the lambs for slaughter
I have decided to limit my reviews to clear endorsements only, for the reason I elaborate on here, and that can be curtly summed up as "I do not feel comfortable with publicly criticizing editors who may in future hold the wiki-equivalent of life or death power over me." Further, I will also add that with regard to majority of candidates I hold no strong feelings either way (but for obvious reasons, I cannot include them, or my above statement becomes pointless...).

I have decided to strongly endorse the following candidates (5 stars out of 5:    ): All of the above candidates are in a very small group of arbitrators who have replied (respectfully, meaningfully) to nearly all wiki email or talk post message I have send them over they years.
 * Questions Edit counter stats - my interaction with this editor has been very positive both as an regular editor (on Wikipedia and Wikisource) and as a party (through he has been recused in a case I was involved in, he was still engaged in some very constructive discussions, made some unofficial but very constructive suggestions (showing a rare, in my experience, belief that there are other methods of solving problems than with the use of banhammer), and was probably the most active participant of the case discussion pages). His comments were were constructive and respectful. I cannot think of more I could ask from an arbitrator. Edit count analysis gives a healthy 44.2% content edits to 29.4% wiki namespace edits.
 * Questions Edit counter stats - while in my experience not as active in discussions as John, his participation, particularly in the workshop/proposed decisions, has always been more than satisfactory. Just like John, Brad also recognizes that there is more to problem solving than just banning everybody. We need more arbitrators like him who can think above the "whack-the-wedditol" game :)
 * Questions Edit counter stats - Shell has impressed me on several occasions by the depth of analysis on some dispute resolution cases. This shows both a keen eye for spotting a root of a problem, and a dedication of willing to shift through a lot of evidence. This endorsement comes with an added weight that we had our share of disagreements in the past, up to the point of Shell presenting evidence against me in one case. This is beyond us now (she was right, I was wrong), and I think that she has been doing - and can keep on doing - a great job in the Committee. Edit count analysis gives a healthy 39.2% edits in article space.

I am also weakly endorsing the following candidates (4 stars out of 5:   ):
 * Questions Edit counter stats - a very long experience at dealing with WP:AE cases, coupled with above-average judgment, deserves to be recognized by a term on the Committee. The reason this is not a strong recommendation is that in the recent past I have signs of burning out, what I can only describe as a "dispute-resolution-radicalization". It seems to me that after many years of dealing with tough problems (and problem-makers) on AE, Sandstein's "gloves" are off. He sees less and less need to review evidence in detail, particularly when it comes to editors he has dealt with in the past; he thinks he knows or can recognize the problem quickly, and the applicable solution is usually the smash of a ban-hammer. While not denying that with his experience and expertise, he is often right, I've witnessed cases where I found his judgment or attitude lacking. That said, years of good work in hard dispute-resolution environment give him experience few can match. I sincerely hope that either I am wrong in my analysis of his recent judgment changes, or that he will/has already abandoned it; but even if not, the Committee can benefit from his experience, and if we need a "banhammer-fan" on the Committee, I cannot think of any more qualified than him. On a final note, edit count analysis indicates a small but positive domination of article edits to wiki namespace edits (35% to 29%)
 * Questions Edit counter stats - I was for the most part favorably impressed by his comments, proposal and votes in the cases I am familiar with, with the only disappointment being some of his comments regarding my person :) Still, keeping personal feelings in check, I think he has being doing an above-average job, and deserves another year in the seat as well. The 18.8% article namespace edits, compared to 29.4% wikispace edits, do suggest that SirFozzie could benefit from engaging more with the core activities of the project.

On a final note, good luck to you all. If you win, may you handle the responsibility with the utmost respect it requires, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)