User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2010

This guide represents the personal views of SandyGeorgia:
 * my 2009 Guide
 * my 2008 Guide
 * my summary of the most helpful 2010 guides

The election of 12 new arbitrators, to bring the 2011 Committee to a total of 18 arbitrators, is expected for the December 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections—with voting underway through December 5.

A 2009 RFC on the makeup of ArbCom was poorly thought out and had the (intended or unintended) effect or removing to some extent discretion for handling unforeseen events in ArbCom appointments. This RFC extended the Committee size to 18, resulting in the appointment of six members to the 2010 ArbCom with lower support totals than would be necessary to pass RFA; one appointment——gained less than 60% support.

The 18-member size of the Committee makes it harder for the Committee to come to consensus on deliberations. We give the Arbs access to highly sensitive and personal information, and we are now in the curious position of granting access to privileged information to editors who have lower support totals than are even required to pass the already very low (70%) trust barrier of RFA. If the trend holds for the 2010 election, the result is likely to be another overly large Committee comprised of candidates who gain even lower support percentages.

I hope the unfortunate side effects of the 2009 RFC will be revisted depending upon the outcome of the 2010 elections, but I do not support the notion of an 18-member Committee comprised of members who don't enjoy a high level of trust within the Wiki community, I do not believe they are 12 desirable candidates this year, I will not be Supporting 12 candidates, and it is my hope that there will be no appointments of candidates who gain less than 60% Support. Trust, fairness, balance, diligence, and longevity will be key factors in my Support votes this year.

Criteria
In the 2010 elections, I will be evaluating candidates on:
 * 1) Longevity and active involvement across a broad spectrum of different areas of Wikipedia.
 * Every year sees several retirements from ArbCom and the appointment of several members who haven't demonstrated engagement with broad aspects of Wikipedia. I will be looking for candidates who have a demonstrated, long-term commitment to Wikipedia and engagement and knowledge of a broad aspect of Wikipedia.  I won't be looking for just mediators, just writers, just clerks, or just admins, rather balance and longevity.
 * 1) Trustworthiness, balance, fairness, respect, and diligence in investigating disputes.
 * Because of the possibility of increasingly large committees made up of members with decreasing support totals, evidence of trustworthiness and integrity will weigh heavily in my decisions this year. We entrust highly sensitive and personal confidential information to the arbs, and with lower support tallies, trustiworthiness is key.
 * 1) Position on editors who evidence lack of maturity with respect to the pillars of Wikipedia.
 * Increasing numbers of immature editors are making it harder and harder for serious editors to do productive work on Wikipedia. If you don't "get that", I'm unlikely to Support.
 * 1) Position on need for reform of RFA, RFC/U and Wiki processes to deal with admin actions
 * Support for a stronger, faster and easier means of removing admin tools from admins who misuse them.
 * Support for curtailing the peanut gallery and double standard evidenced for admins vs. other users at ANI.
 * I am unlikely to support any candidate who is weak on admin abuse or misuse of tools—abusive admins make productive work on Wiki as difficult as do the trolls, vandals, POV pushers, and immature editors.
 * 1) Knowledge of and support for content contributors, and an end to coddling of disruptive editors.
 * And speaking of what makes work impossible on Wiki, the 2009 and 2010 Arb Committees both coddled disruptive users. Even editors who share certain POVs on Climate Change were disappointed at the failure to severely sanction the most disruptive editors, and the general rounding up of lesser disruptive editors in a shotgun approach to the CC disruptive editing.
 * 1) Strong enforcement of Wiki's policies on Biographies of living persons and knowledge of high-quality sourcing and responsible writing in BLPs and science/biomedical articles.
 * I will be looking for candidates who understand the importance of the highest quality sourcing in both BLPs and medical articles; in my opinion, Wiki's obligation to put out responsible medical information is as strong as its responsibility in the BLP realm.

Candidate chart
Table formatting cribbed from User:Lar/ACE2010.