User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009

ArbCom 2009 Elections • VOTE here • Candidate statements

In 2008, I was concerned that ArbCom was out of touch with the community and did not have enough members whose primary focus prior to election was on adding top content; I believe the issues of concern were addressed as effectively as possible by the 2009 ArbCom. Considering the issues affecting ArbCom last year, I stand by most of my votes in last year's election (with some notable exceptions). Many observers noted that the 2009 ArbCom was one of Wiki's finest ever; however, burnout and "hounding" were factors that seriously impacted the 2009 ArbCom, with two of Wiki's most highly supported arbitrators resigning from ArbCom (Kirill Lokshin and Casliber). Additionally, at least one case was impacted by a high number of recusals, leading to a low number of members left to arbitrate the case. As a result of these factors and others, ArbCom appears to have moved away from arbitrating and towards mediating some cases, leaving intractable problems in the hands of the community rather than making tough decisions, resulting in a drain on the time of many of Wiki's most productive editors. Tough, thorough, and scrupulous arbs are a clear necessity this year, especially considering the issues introduced by the possibility of an 18-member panel compromised possibly of arbs with low support tallies.

The 2009 ArbCom elections will name up to eight or nine new members (if they attain at least 50% support) for two-year terms to the Committee currently occupied by thirteen members.

Like last year, some 2009 ArbCom deliberations and decisions highlight the need for reform. It still takes ArbCom too long to reach conclusions already understood by editors who are daily "in the trenches" of article writing, and at least one case was inflamed by unfortunate feedback from some arbs who didn't appear to thoroughly understand the case. This year, I'll add cojones to the qualities we most need to balance and beef up ArbCom, hopefully returning the committee to a stronger arbitrating body that respects the valuable time of volunteers. I will generally (allowing for the rare exception) consider the following factors as important towards attaining a balanced ArbCom:

Criteria

 * 1) Arbitrate or mediate? We elect arbitrators to make tough and sometimes unpopular decisions.  I'm looking for candidates who will help avoid losing our most productive content contributors, and aren't afraid to make tough calls in difficult circumstances.  Coddling disruptive editors results in time wasted and the loss of productive editors who leave in frustration; by the time disputes or disruptive editors meet ArbCom, other steps in dispute resolution have typically failed, and stronger remedies may be needed.
 * 2) Transparency.  On several occasions, I've received e-mail indicating possible leaks on ArbCom or among Checkusers; I will be looking for a  proven commitment to on-Wiki transparency.  If I have indications that a candidate frequently operates backchannel or as part of a group or off-Wiki "clique", I'm unlikely to Support, and may Oppose.
 * 3) Research skills.  Diligent background research is time-consuming, but essential to effective arb case resolution; I'll be looking for evidence of that in candidates. I am looking for a demonstrated capacity to research and understand the background of complex situations, and respond appropriately.
 * 4) Writing skills.  Unfortunate wording on decisions or comments impacted at least one case this year: I'll again be looking for effective communication skills, usually (but not always) demonstrated by top content contributions. Contributions at the FA or GA level will not be my primary focus this year, but a proven ability to write clearly will.  If a candidate hasn't contributed top content, I need to see other indications of longevity, commitment, proven ability to write and involvement in dispute resolution; likewise, top content contributions don't necessarily mean a candidate has those qualities.
 * 5) Community contact.  The demands of serving on ArbCom can lead to a loss of contact with the editors who are "in the trenches", working on articles. This effect can be compounded if a member never had extensive community contact and article writing experience prior to election, so I am looking for candidates who have significant time spent in article contributions or demonstrated leadership and involvement at, for example, the WikiProject level.  I am not looking for candidates who frequent AN/I, although I will consider admins who consistently give sound advice there.
 * 6) Longevity.  Because of the problem with ArbCom being diminished in 2009 by resignations, I'll be considering longevity as a factor this year; I am leary (this year) of candidates who haven't demonstrated longevity and sustained editing on Wiki.

Candidate chart and my rationale for each vote

 * Contributions table courtesy of User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009.

ArbCom candidate listings use a uniform 300-day cutoff as the "recent" parameter and start counting back from 01 November 2009. This is to prevent the "recent" summaries from being affected by the current election and any possible aftermath from the previous one.


 * Pastille verte.png Support
 * Pastille rouge.png Oppose
 * Pastille grise.png Neutral

Strong support
My Support goes to candidates with:
 * Demonstrated research and writing skills, willingness to make tough decisions, balance, integrity, civility, and awareness of policy and issues facing top content contributors.
 * No deviations from the concerns I outlined above, to my knowledge.
 * Significant participation in dispute resolution or some previous leadership role on Wiki, when combined with the other factors.

Cla68
• questions
 * Cojones in spades, a top content contributor, demonstrated commitment and longevity, and the argument that he's not an admin holds no water, as he should have been—in fact, had passed RFA before his candidacy was unjustly extended and derailed based on untrue charges.

Kirill Lokshin
• questions
 * Simply the best: never should have resigned, but he did because he has character in spades. Top content contributor and demonstrated leadership, at both MilHist and ArbCom.  With the switch to two-year terms, experienced arbs will be needed.

Coren
• questions
 * Although he had in the 2008 elections and still has one of the lowest amount of content contributions among all candidates, Casliber strongly endorses him and his well written answers to questions demonstrate frank, clear and concise writing ability. I found most of his answers to the questions clueful, and the fact that he is standing again after one year on ArbCom indicates that burnout is unlikely. Coren is the only candidate I am supporting who is not a top content contributor; because of the switch to two-year terms, I believe it's important to retain an experienced arb, and his answers to the candidate questions satisfy me.

Fritzpoll
• questions
 * Excellent article work and editing ratios, active in community, a bit concerned about users only active for 2 1/2 years in terms of longevity and burnout. Successful work on Macedonia case demonstrates dispute resolution skills. I'm not sure this part of the Candidate's statement is workable or practical or useful: "I would like to see a clear scope explicitly defined for all cases when they are accepted." In fact, it may be harmful (the C68-FM-SV case got the right outcome, but had the scope been defined in advance, it's unlikely the same would have resulted). I'm supporting anyway, since I like the sentiment of imposing more structure on ArbCom, and believe that if he's appointed, Fritzpoll will realize this idea isn't workable :)

KnightLago
• questions
 * Good editing balance and article contributions, longevity, and Arb clerk experience. Generally like his answers to the questions, but not convinced by his position on the Advisory Council (cojones factor). Clerk work on Macedonia and Eastern European mailing list, so he knows what he's getting in to. No nonsense attitude, Arbcom Clerk.  Good answers to questions.

MBK004
• questions
 * MilHist coordinator, stong content contributions, concerned about short time on Wikipedia, good answers to questions. I am neutral on MBK004 only because of his limited time on Wiki, and concern for burnout; if he's still going strong by this time next year, I'll likely support, as he is an excellent contributor. Moving to Support, considering another arb resignation.

Ruslik0
• questions
 * A true content builder, and we do need scientists on ArbCom who can and will analyze evidence neutrally. Demonstrated longevity and commitment: unlikely to burn out.

SirFozzie
• questions
 * Good candidate, but I just can't endorse someone who has such low contributions and hasn't written anything above B-class. Please, write some GAs or an FA, engage the encyclopedia, and I may support next year. I'd like to see demonstrated commitment, longevity, and demonstrated experience in content building.  Moving to Support considering another Arb resignation, and ample representation on ArbCom now of top content contributors.

Steve Smith
• questions
 * Excellent content contributions, good editing balance, collaborative at FAC; concerned about longevity (only 2 1/2 years on Wiki) and opening statement: "For reasons that I cannot fully fathom, let alone articulate, I am offering myself for election to the Arbitration Committee." Like his bold stance on advisory council and structure ("a vote for Steve Smith is a vote for structure"). Like his answer to NYB's "strict vs. lenient" question.  Among the strong content contributors, I believe Steve Smith will make the best addition to ArbCom.

Jehochman
• questions
 * Good article contributions and editing ratios (dispute resolution to content contributions), active in the community, longevity demonstrated. Like some answers to questions, dislike some. I am staying neutral on Jehochman. I disagree with many statements I've read from his opposers, still think he would make a good arb, but think that he has made himself unelectable for having engaged many intractable disputes or disruptive editors on Wiki.  Disengage from certain factions completely for a year, and try again next year. The larger Wiki community usually "gets it", but when you engage many difficult editors, it's hard for some to tell which is which, and judging from other voter guides, many voters aren't "getting it" with Jehochman.

Mailer diablo
• questions
 * Excellent article contributions, editing balance, and demonstrated longevity. Arbcom clerk. Generally good answers to questions, except one important miss:  "Case-wise, I don't see anything that seems to be disastrously wrong this year."  That he saw nothing wrong with several cases this year indicates a problem to me (group think?).

Oppose
I oppose candidates with:
 * A significant imbalance in editing ratios, reflecting a possible lack of understanding of issues facing top content contributors or engagment with the Wiki community in mainspace.
 * Any significant deviation from or personal knowledge of the editor in relation to concerns about the current ArbCom and issues facing Wiki, outlined above.
 * Fewer than 5,000 edits (I'd oppose them for admins, too); sorry, but we need to know you better, and we've seen sockpuppets and banned users pass RfA.

AGK
• questions
 * Limited article contributions: after three and a half years on Wiki, has not written anything above start class. We need editors on ArbCom who have engaged actively in article writing and the inherent disputes. ArbCom clerk.

Fred Bauder
• questions
 * I do not have the sense that Fred Bauder is still in touch with the community, nor do his recent article contributions impress.

Hersfold
• questions
 * Arbcom clerk. Extremely limited content contributions: I'm looking for candidates who have more actively engaged in building content. Clerking for ArbCom is a good way to engage and learn about Arbcom procedures and dispute resolution, but is better when combined with experience in the aricle writing trenches.

Kmweber
• questions
 * No article building.

RMHED
• questions
 * After 3 1/2 years on Wiki, has written some lists. I'm looking for candidates with ample writing experience.  Socks.

Seddon
• questions
 * Mediators with limited content building experience are not what I'm looking for to round out ArbCom this year. Perhaps next year. Arbcom clerk.

Shell Kinney
• questions
 * Oppose for same reasons as last year, only even stronger this year per mediate or arbitrate.

Unomi
• questions
 * I don't know you; I see almost no content contributions.

Wehwalt
• questions
 * Top content contributions, editing balance, and demonstrated longevity. Answers to candidate questions are evasive, incomplete, flippant or non-answers. "What you have posted is a BIG question, and I'm not going to reinvent the wheel." "You think you're going to stop my next FA, Julian? Bring up a few of your hurricanes and try!" No answer to EdChem's Question 8. 13A)" I can't be specific, but it would have to be conduct so egregious that I felt that most users, acquainted with the facts, would want the tools yanked."  15A) "Ask me that after four months on the committee. If I said it now, I'd deservedly be like the people who call in to sports talk radio saying what THEY would do if they were the owner."  No answer to Question 30 on which cases arbcom handled unsuccessfully this year.  "Lenient" on the answer to NYB's question.  Contradictory stances on Advisory Committee vs. Audit Subcommittee app't.  Satisfied with our current approach on BLP, but doesn't expound or fully answer the question.  Advocates patience with difficult editors.  Faulty answer on 3RR.  "We're here to build an encyclopedia, not achieve Nirvana" isn't helpful feedback for voters.  Evaded almost all questions asked by Rschen7754.  Brief and unsatisfactory answers to Kirill's questions.  "Disagree[s] that BLP enforcement is lax".  One editor had to reask a general question because answer was "so short and vague that it really isn't useful at all".  "I do not disclose my personal identity and do not plan to."  Unsatisfactory answers to stalking question.  After initially declining to answer a question, was told, "This question is a word for word repeat from last year. No serious candidate last year had trouble answering it, IIRC."  It doesn't appear that Wehwalt is willing to give voters the feedback they deserve or that he has given enough thought or research to the difficult issues that arise before ArbCom, or will commit to answers so that voters can evaluate his stance on the issues. Adding these answers to his resistance to respecting consensus on BLP Natalee Holloway, here and in earlier and later sections, and the AGF issues that occurred in the early days of his work at WP:TFA/R (although I recognize he does good work there today along with excellent content work), I am not convinced that ArbCom is a good fit for his temperament or views about Wiki. ArbCom has enough good content contributors now; content work alone isn't enough.

William M. Connolley
• questions
 * Contributions are largely in a single area: that concerns me.

Xavexgoem
• questions
 * I believe I may have first welcomed Xavexgoem to Wiki (only two years ago), and he's a fine person, but has extremely limited content building experience. Exactly what we don't need on ArbCom this year are mediators who haven't worked in the trenches of article building, dealing with conflict.  X, if you engage the encyclopedia, write some articles, and come back next year, I may support.  With the burnout factor of ArbCom, we need to see you can engage conflict yourself, and know that as a relatively new editor, you will stick around.  I'd also like to see how you might handle POV conflicts yourself.