User:Elonka/ACE2013

Disclaimer: This page expresses my personal opinions and observations only. I encourage all voters to do their own research on the candidates.

• Update: Election results were posted on December 16, 2013; however, though elected, candidate 28bytes resigned on December 30, so will not be serving as arbitrator.[1]

Overview

For those who aren't sure what this is about: The Arbitration Committee is part of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. In fact, ArbCom is pretty much the last stop. For a general real world analogy, ArbCom is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. The arbitrators don't make decisions on article content, but they do issue rulings on complex disputes relating to user conduct, and they have considerable authority within the wiki-culture. Members of the committee are usually elected for two-year terms (sometimes one or three), with a new batch elected each year.

From October 1 to November 1, 2013, an RfC took place concerning the format of the 2013 elections, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. The standard questions to be asked of each candidate were discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Questions/General.

Candidates self-nominated from November 10–19. The election itself ran from November 25 until December 8. Results were posted on December 16.

For this 2013/2014 cycle, the top eight candidates will serve 2-year terms, and the next highest candidate will serve a 1-year term, on a Committee comprised of a total of 15 arbitrators (the remaining seven are continuing their terms from last year's election).

This page that you are reading, contains my (Elonka's) thoughts on the 2013 crop of ArbCom candidates. My general standards for a candidate are: admin access, integrity, experience with article-writing, time-available for the job, and hands-on knowledge of the dispute resolution processes.

To see my thoughts on previous elections, check the history of:

• User:Elonka/ACE2008
• User:Elonka/ACE2009
• User:Elonka/ACE2010
• User:Elonka/ACE2011
• User:Elonka/ACE2012

Candidates

Candidates self-nominated from November 10–19, 2013. Voting ran from November 25 to December 8. To see a list of who voted, check here. Results were posted on December 16.

1. 28bytes (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Support. Trusted member of the community, with bureaucrat access. Well-spoken, clean record. My only quibble might be that I would have liked to see him have a bit more experience with the dispute resolution processes first, but everything else is solid, so I will support.

2. AGK (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Support. Current arbitrator, running for re-election. I opposed AGK's candidacy in the past, but since then I have seen him mature into a competent and hardworking arbitrator, so if he's willing to take it on, I am willing to support him for another term.

3. Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Oppose. I had some brief interactions with Arthur Rubin back in 2008, when I and other administrators were engaging in arbitration enforcement at the Quackwatch article. Arthur Rubin was an administrator who was active in the dispute as an involved editor. He took great exception to the discretionary sanctions that I placed, and issued numerous complaints that I was too "aggressively neutral".[2][3] Of more concern, he said that he was thinking about using his tools to block me because he disagreed with the sanctions.[4] In 2009, he was admonished by ArbCom for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute. Just recently, in September 2013, he was again admonished by ArbCom for edit warring and long-term combative editing, and he is currently topic-banned from all pages related to the Tea Party movement. In short, this is not someone who should be an arbitrator.

4. Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Weak oppose. Has administrator and oversight access. I opposed him last year due to lack of experience in dispute resolution, and insufficient content work (no FA or GAs). Has a few DYKs. He's done a lot of good work on the project, but also appears to be somewhat controversial. I looked a bit into the situation where he was blocked on Meta and do have to admit concern with some of his statements there.[5] He seems to have an interesting combination of both qualities that would make a great arb, and qualities that give me concern.

5. Bwilkins (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Strong oppose. Didn't even bother answering most of the questions until within 24 hours of the start of voting,[6] and they did so by switching over to their alternate account, EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk · contribs).[7] This flipping back and forth between two accounts on the same page is confusing and difficult to track. Bwilkins doesn't seem to have any substantial content work, no GAs or FAs that I could find. And the DGAF userbox on their userpage is definitely not a good sign. There was an attempt to open a case about Bwilkins' behavior at ArbCom a few months ago. The case was not accepted, but the evidence presented is still very troubling, with extensive examples of inappropriate behavior,[8] and I see that even Jimbo suggested that Bwilkins should resign.[9] This is definitely not someone who should be an arbitrator.

6. David Gerard (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Oppose. Longtime Wikipedian, was an arbitrator back in the early days, in 2004. However, he was recently involved in an arbitration case where it was determined that he had been abusing administrator tools. Last month (October 2013) he was formally admonished, and was prohibited, indefinitely, from using his administrator access in certain topic areas. Considering that he is currently under ArbCom sanctions, I really don't think it was wise for him to immediately respond by running for arbitrator.

7. Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Oppose. Firstly, Floquenbeam states openly in their candidate statement that they're not going to be very active. Secondly, I have concerns about how Floquenbeam has used administrator tools, making controversial blocks and unblocks with what appears to be little explanation. In October 2012 Floquenbeam blocked User:Jclemens, a sitting arbitrator, a block which was overturned within minutes. Further, the kind of generic template that Floquenbeam placed on Jclemens' page was unacceptable.[10] This kind of impulsive use of tools is not something I want to see in any administrator, let alone an arbitrator.

8. Gamaliel (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Support. Longterm Wikipedian, no GAs or FAs, but lots of DYKs. I like their strong stance on civility. Very active on the dispute resolution noticeboards. It's a concern though that they haven't managed to answer most of the official questions. Then again, some of the answers that are there are pretty solid. I'm not a fan of the way they make edits without leaving edit summaries, but that's a quibble. Overall, perhaps not the strongest candidate, but I'm not seeing any good reason to oppose, so will support.

9. Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Oppose. Based on simple activity level, he hasn't done a lot on the project over the last year. Arbitrators have an enormous workload, and so I need to be sure that they'll be willing and able to devote the time necessary.

10. GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Weak oppose. I see many wonderful qualities in GorillaWarfare, and believe she is an asset to the project. However, I'm not sure she would be a good choice for arbitrator at this time, simply because she has practically no experience with the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. So I'm opposing for now, but I would encourage her to get more experience, such as by offering uninvolved statements at arbitration cases from time to time, and then (assuming she's not elected this year) try again for ArbCom next year.

11. Guerillero (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Oppose. I opposed last year due to weak answers, and insufficient experience with dispute resolution. Since then, he has gained more experience, but I am extremely concerned about his time available. He has not been terribly active on the project this year, and in October he requested that his administrator status be removed, but his checkuser and oversight status remain.[11] This is a bizarre choice, and I think it extremely unwise that though he's not taken the admin bit back, he's choosing to run for arbitrator?? Sorry, I cannot support in these circumstances.

12. Isarra (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Oppose. Not an admin.

13. Kraxler (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Oppose. Not an admin.

14. Ks0stm (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Support. I opposed last year due to lack of experience with the dispute resolution processes. Since then Ks0stm has gained more experience, mostly with clerking. I would have preferred to actually see some uninvolved comments at various cases, but understand that that would be difficult to offer as a clerk. Ks0stm strikes me as someone who is fairly level-headed, so I am willing to support them this time around.

15. Kww (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Oppose. This is Kww's third run at ArbCom. In 2011 he received 38% support, and in 2012 it was 35%. I opposed before because of concerns with Kww's 2011 candidate statement, and again in 2012 for pretty much the same reasons. I think he does a lot of great stuff for the project, but I just don't think he'd be well-suited for the role of arbitrator. He's a bit too "My way or the highway", which can cause problems on a project where the goal is to seek consensus, and this personality trait has been a contributing factor to Kww being involved in a long string of disputes. His 2013 candidate statement is clear, "I'm not nice. I've never pretended to be." Okay fine, but I expect arbitrators to be capable of a certain amount of diplomacy. Kww's answers to questions this year also continue to show the same pattern as in the past, a kind of, "I'm right, they're wrong, and some of them are out to get me, too." Of course, the standard statement applies, that just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. I do agree with Kww on many things, but there's just a bit too much controversy swirling around him, and for that reason, I must oppose.

16. LFaraone (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Weak oppose. I was initially a "Likely Support" on this candidate, but have switched to "Undecided" after further investigation, and then "Weak Oppose". To be fair, they are a trusted member of the community, with Checkuser and Oversight access. Not one of the more widely known Wikipedians, but seems to do a fair bit of work on the project. Not much in the way of content contributions though. I like their pro-civility stance, but I am very concerned that they haven't managed to answer all the questions yet. Normally I would expect a candidate to have answered most of the official questions before even offering up their candidacy, but here we are well past the nomination period, only a day and a half away from voting starting, and things are still blank. Looking deeper into LFaraone's contribs, their activity level is also very uneven. They were extremely active on the project during the summer, but then starting in August their activity level dropped off dramatically, and stayed fairly low until suddenly deciding to run for ArbCom. Yesterday, Friday (11/22), LFaraone posted a note that they'd answer the questions that evening,[12] but here we are Saturday, and still nada. Time-management and keeping one's promises are a big part of being an arbitrator, and if someone can't even answer the candidate questions, it's a big red flag as to whether or not they'd be able to handle the arbitration workload. That, plus promising to answer the questions by a certain time, and then not, push me over to a Weak Oppose, sorry. (11/24 update: LFaraone finally got the questions answered, with less than 24 hours before voting starts. I have reviewed the answers, but am sticking with my oppose). Note: See the talkpage for a discussion that LFaraone and I are having.

17. NativeForeigner (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Hesitant support. Good content contributions, experience with the MilHist project, and is a trusted member of the community with Checkuser access. No real experience with arbitration, which is a concern, and I also do not share the priorities that he lists in his candidate statement, but I don't think that that's a strong enough reason to oppose. Of more concern is that I asked them for more information about their dispute resolution experience, they said they would offer diffs,[13] but then didn't. Whether this was because of being too busy, forgetful, disorganized, reluctant, or whatever, it's not a good sign. So I'm kind of on the fence about NativeForeigner. I've scanned through other guides to get more opinions, and see that there are definitely mixed feelings there as well. Some support him strongly, and a few oppose, but those that oppose are rarely saying why they oppose, so there's not much for me to go on. I guess if there were a wealth of other strong candidates this year, I might oppose, but considering NativeForeigner in comparison to the others that are actually running, he seems to be one of the better of this year's batch. So, I'm supporting, but just barely.

18. RegentsPark (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Weak oppose. I opposed RegentsPark's candidacy last year due to strong concerns about whether or not RegentsPark would be able to handle the workload of being an arbitrator (by the time voting began on November 26, they still hadn't even answered many of the official questions).[14] This year I felt the answers to questions were a bit weak, and when I asked for more info, RegentsPark replied that they had a "no diffs" policy.[15] Sorry, I can't go along with that (and it sounds like an excuse, really, to avoid the work). Arbitrators need to be comfortable with diffs, both reading and supplying. RegentsPark seems like a nice individual, and I like their pro-civility stance. But I'm just not comfortable that he'd be able to handle the workload of being an arbitrator. I don't want an arbitrator who just skims and makes a snap judgment, as opposed to really understanding a case. Therefore, sadly, I must oppose.

19. Richwales (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Support. Richwales ran for ArbCom last year but did not make the cutoff. Hopefully he'll make it this year. I find him to be thoughtful and articulate, with experience in both content creation and dispute resolution. His answers to questions are thorough and well-diffed. I also like his pro-civility stance, and think he'd make a very good arb.

20. Roger Davies (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Support. Current arbitrator, running for re-election.

21. Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Support. Doesn't have a lot of content contributions, but has a ton of experience in dispute resolution. Very active in arbitration enforcement, and appears to be level-headed. My biggest concern is about time-available. Scanning through 2013 contribs, I see that Seraphimblade is sometimes gone for months at a time. Then again, I asked them about this on their questions page, and am satisfied with their answer,[16] so am willing to support.

22. The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

    Oppose. Not an admin.

Withdrawn

1. Courcelles (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Support. Current arbitrator, running for re-election. (withdrew from election due to health reasons)

2. GregJackP (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Oppose. Not an admin.

3. Jinkinson (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Oppose. Not an admin.

4. Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Oppose. Not an admin.

5. Secret (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions

   Previously known as Jaranda (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

   Oppose. Secret has gone in and out of administrator status multiple times, most recently requesting de-sysopping in September, then decided to run for arbitrator as a non-admin, then chose to become an admin again on November 13. In total has gone through the RfA process11 times, most recently in February 2013.

---