 |
|
Criteria
editI'm mostly looking for candidates who:
- Are able and willing to spend a lot time in reviewing evidence presented during a case. Too often, arbitrators seem to have no clue of the dispute they are trying to solve. I believe it is lack of time (or even interest) for reviewing evidence has been the main reason for this in the past.
- Are consistent when making decisions. If two editors have similar track records and block logs, the one should not be given just a 1-month block will the other gets 6 months for a similar violation. Admin decisions are often very inconsistent in general, but an arbitrator should strive for absolute consistency. I believe consistency equals fairness.
- Place importance on the process in addition to the result. Previous ArbComs often did not care about the process, letting discussions during a case get out of hand and missing several case deadlines.
- Respect the letter of the law. For example, if a previous sanction says it will be reviewed no earlier than after 1 year, then a good arbitrator will not review it after 6 months even if he feels like doing so. If the ArbCom issues a ruling and then violates it, they have been misleading the community.
- Are reliable and unlikely to abuse sensitive information.
- Place emphasis on communicativeness. Previous ArbComs have often been too unresponsive. It can sometimes take weeks to get an answer to a question, even to a simple yes-or-no one.
- Place emphasis on openness. Too often, decisions are prepared and discussed in secret, leaving the community in the blue and with little information about how and on what basis the decision was made.
- Base their decision regarding an editor solely on the individual evidence about this editor. A good arb won't just ban an equal number of editors on both "sides" and be done with it. He also will not base his decisions on personal feelings (e.g. "I'm getting annoyed and frustrated because of X, therefore I will do Y") They will also consider all evidence in the same way, regardless of the "status" of the user who presented it.
Summary
editThe best candidates in order of quality:
- Sandstein
- Iridescent
- Stephen Bain
- FT2
- SirFozzie
- GiacomoReturned
- Newyorkbrad
- Elen of the Roads
Candidate chart
editTable formatting cribbed from User:Lar/ACE2010.
| User/Talk/Contribs | Statement and details |
Rights | Edits | Since | My thoughts | Intended vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balloonman • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[1] none | 22656 | 2006-04-01 | He has been actively participating at admin noticeboards, but gives the impression of being just a general commenter instead of someone who makes the hard decisions. I don't see much involvement in complex dispute resolution, therefore it's difficult to evaluate his abilities. The candidate statement ("I retired but getting to ArbCom would be a reason to continue my participation in the project") and the failure to so far answer question 1 doesn't give the impression that Balloonman would be a committed arb. Obviously a good or average (former) admin, but of not arbitrator quality. |  Oppose
| |
| Casliber • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[2] A, (ex)Arb | 76277 | 2006-05-05 | Already served as arbitrator in the past, therefore he is probably reliable and trustworthy, although the Law-Undertow -incident has stained his credibility. In the arbitration cases I looked at, Casliber tended to just vote with little or no commenting, so it's not obvious whether he has spent a lot of time reviewing the evidence. The answers on his question page are also short, although relatively good. His votes in the arbitration cases are quite good, and he is not too lenient with disruptive editors. Still, I tend to think that he already got his chance, and I'm not seeing any particularly good perfomance during his tenure. | Oppose
| |
| Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[3] A | 22036 | 2005-08-08 | Has already held a position of trust at OTRS, so I don't think his reliability is in question. He is an experienced admin, who is especially involved in vandal-fighting, copyright questions and deletions. But he seems to have little experience in difficult dispute resolution. Most of his comments at the noticeboards are short, and do not indicate that he has spent a large amount of time reviewing evidence. There were some cases where he had filed an AfD, but all other editors who commented disagreed with his view. There were also some occasions where I found his writing too aggressive. On the other hand, his answers to questions are impressive and I agree with his positions. He says that one of his previous jobs involved examining evidence of fraud and making difficult decisions, which is a big plus because it means he probably has good dispute resolution and evidence reviewing skills. He seems to consistently make a large number of edits, so availability of time should not be problem. It's a tough call, but I'd like to see more participation in difficult dispute resolution before arbitratorship. | Oppose
| |
| David_Fuchs • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[4] A | 26502 | 2005-10-15 | An admin who is mostly involved in FAC work and also makes some occasional comments or even closures at WP:AN and WP:AN/I. I looked at his contributions during the past year, and could find little participation in real dispute resolution. Most of his comments at the noticeboards are short, and the closures are mostly trivial. In his answers to questions he says that his real life responsibilities good communication and problem-solving skills. This is a plus, but doesn't compensate enough for his lack of track-record in dispute resolution. Most of his other answers are short and not too impressive. I think he is similar to Balloonman in that he is a good admin, but not of arbitrator quality and with too little experience in dispute resolution. | Oppose
| |
| Elen_of_the_Roads • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[5] A | 7892 | 2008-05-11 | Has been an admin for only short while and doesn't have much experience of dispute resolution. When I looked at her comments at various noticeboards, I found them to be well-written professional. I looked at her involvement in the Ottawa Rima arbitration case and liked it. She presented a good analysis of the situation, and (correctly) supported sanctions for the editor in question. I believe ArbCom should be harsh with long-term wikilawyering disruptive editors. The lack of experience is a minus, but I get the feeling this user is someone who can be trusted with the the position of an arbitrator. |  Support
| |
| FT2 • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[6] A,EFM | 39260 | 2004-07-11 | Served as arbitrator in 2008. I looked over some of his cases and was pretty impressed. He is not one of those arbitrators who only vote and are done with it, his comments were quite detailed, and generally he seemed responsive to questions from other participants. The cases I looked at seemed to support his claim that he "rigorously reviewed evidence." However, there were many cases in 2008 in which his involvement was minimal. His detailed extended candidate statement and answers to the questions indicate that he is serious about regaining arbitratorship and is willing to spend a lot effort once elected. Since he has already served in ArbCom, there should not be much doubt about his trustworthiness or credibility. The conversation with John Vandenberg during the election raises some questions, but it's difficult to know what's really going on. I disagreed with some of his positions in the cases I looked at, but I believe he as a better-than-average arbitrator. A relatively safe choice in these elections. | Support
| |
| Georgewilliamherbert • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[7] A,EFM | 13211 | 2005-07-31 |  Undecided
| ||
| GiacomoReturned • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[8] none | 6827 | 2009-05-26 | A long-time critic of the ArbCom. Has promised not to subsribe to the closed ArbCom mailing list, which is a plus. It would hardly be possible to get a more open arbitrator. I tend to agree with his criticism of the ArbCom in general. The major concern is his block log; this user has clearly been disruptive on several occasions. Has a very long experience of Wikipedia processes and dispute resolution. It would be interesting to see how he would manage to change ArbCom from the inside. | Support
| |
| Harej • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[9] A | 15497 | 2004-11-26 | Undecided
| ||
| Iridescent • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[10] A | 146284 | 2006-02-15 | I looked at his comments on various noticeboards during the last year at random and liked them. I found myself agreeing with most of his positions and I did not see mistakes, unnecessary drama or hasty comments from him. Furthermore, I was impressed with his answers to the questions, including to mine: they show that this user has profound knowledge of Wikipedia and its disputes. The answers were detailed enough to indicate that Iridescent is interested in matters related to arbitration and is ready to invest time in thinking and writing about them. The major concern is that this user does not seem to be a regular in difficult dispute resolution, therefore it's hard evaluate his consistency and especially whether he is good at reviewing large amounts of evidence. His answer to my question indicates that he is familiar with the evidence presented during WP:CAMERA and WP:EEML. I was disappointed that he viewed the EEML case sanctions as approriate: members of the CAMERA cabal were indeffed, while the members of EEML, who commited similar, even more serious violations, are now mostly back in action after their short topic bans ended - saying that both sanctions were correct implies inconsistency. Still, this is a minor negative and could be explained by lack of in-depth familiarity with the evidence and by the fact that evaluating the correctness of sanctions can be very subjective. Overall, I was impressed with this candidate. | Support
| |
| Jclemens • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[11] A | 26102 | 2006-08-24 | Undecided
| ||
| John_Vandenberg • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[12] A,C,O, (ex)Arb | 46836 | 2004-09-05 | An ex-arbitrator who we can probably trust. However, the bickering with FT2 during these elections raises some questions. He didn't seem to get any support for his views about FT2 from other arbitrators. It's either a good sign (is ready to speak up and criticise other people when he sees fit) or a bad sign (has personal disputes with others or likes creating drama) - to be safe, I'm not going to assume the first. I'm also not convinced that he has good skills in dispute resolution. During the EEML case, he suggested that the violating editors should be put into community service at other wikimedia projects, a proposal which I strongly disagree with. The most dangerous editors are those who are disruptive and have a lot time. Such as editor could easily work his way through the "community service", and then return to where he left on Wikipedia. No thanks, I believe this is a very misguided proposal. | Oppose
| |
| Loosmark • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[13] Rv | 8186 | 2007-12-26 | Has been on the receiving end of way too many sanctions. As a result, he probably has grievances with many different editors and admins, and cannot be trusted with access to private information. Has zero experience in dispute resolution; although he has a huge amount of experience in participating in disputes. Has been sanctioned and topic banned several times under EE sanctions. I think promoting one of the battleground participators to ArbCom would be dangerous indeed. |  Strong Oppose
| |
| Newyorkbrad • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[14] A,C,O, Arb | 25894 | 2006-02-25 | An experienced arbitrator, who is often way too lenient with disruptive editors. I tend to strongly disagree with his leniency; just imagine what it would be like if all those banned long-time disruptors who he would have refused to ban would be editing? There have also been cases when a proposal written by Newyorkbrad gives the impression that he simply does not have a clue about the editor and the dispute in question. Still, I'm confident that Newyorkbrad is a reliable and trustworthy arbitrator, who can do good, professional job behind the scenes and is a good communicator, although I find his votes and proposals often misguided. There are not many qualified candidates this time, therefore it's better to keep the veteran around. | Support
| |
| Off2riorob • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[15] Rv | 43780 | 2008-12-04 | I've seen him often participate in noticeboard drama, and often in a negative fashion. Has been on the receiving end of too many sanctions, has held no position of trust and can hardly be regarded as reliable and trustworthy because of this. He is also not an admin, therefore we have no evidence of his decision-making capability and consistency. | Strong Oppose
| |
| PhilKnight • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[16] A | 62274 | 2006-07-17 | Says that reviewing evidence and drafting proposals would be his focus area in ArbCom, which is a clear plus. To evaluate PhilKnight's dispute resolution abilities, I looked over the 20 last pages of WP:AE archives. I was a little disappointed to see that most of them are trivial closures, and he doesn't give the impression of being one of the "professional" dispute resolution admins who are willing to make the tough decisions. I'm not convinced that he is able and willing to spend enough time reviewing the evidence. There was one case at AE where he first commented but then changed his opinion saying that he came to a different conclusion after a more thorough review of the evidence. I would like an arbitrator to get it right the first time, and always review the evidence as thoroughly as possible before commenting and making a decision. His comments at AE were also often too short, so it's unclear how interested and committed he is to dispute resolution. I also saw a few cases where was clearly too lenient. There's a lack of candidates with a good track record of dispute resolution, but I'll have to oppose this one. | Oppose
| |
| Sandstein • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[17] A | 41849 | 2005-07-31 | A veteran of arbitration enforcement and probably the candidate who has the most experience in dispute resolution. Places high value on the process and the rule of the law, and I've found his decisions at WP:AE consistent. Due to his long experience and participation in several sensitive issues, I believe Sandstein is clearly an user we can trust. In my opinion, his harshness-leniency level at WP:AE has been excellent. My only problem is that I've seen him sometimes issue sanctions based on personal feeling ("I'm getting annoyed at this, therefore I will ban user X") instead of basing them strictly on evidence. His ability to withstand stress may be a bit questionable. But on the other hand, WP:AE can often be more stressful than the arbitrators chair, because at AE an admin has more individual responsibility and receives more criticism. Therefore, I believe he can handle the new task, especially since he has been subject to a lot more stress than most of the other candidates. In summary, pretty much the ideal candidate compared to the others. |  Strong support
| |
| Shell_Kinney • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[18] A,C,O, Arb | 28921 | 2005-06-10 | A veteran of dispute resolution. Mostly professional, a good investigator and a good communicator. But I tend to find her decisions highly unpredictable and inconsistent. During WP:ARBRB she basically stated that there is nothing with proxying for banned users. Having views that are in contrast to Wikipedia policy is not something I'm looking for in arbitrators. There are also concerns about drama. During WP:EEML, Kinney was banned from the case pages by the clerk for allegedly making flaming comments. The incident finally resulted in the clerk retiring from the project. Not a good sign at all. I also have concerns regarding her neutrality. In summary, I'm not convinced at all that she can make consistent decisions based strictly on the evidence, follow the letter of the policy and avoid drama. | Oppose
| |
| SirFozzie • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[19] A,C,O, Arb | 8873 | 2006-02-06 | During the last elections, he promised to do his best to solve one of ArbCom's worst problems, namely its sometimes extremely sluggish pace of decision making. The latest ArbCom has indeed been faster than the previous ones. How much of the credit can be attributed to SirFozzie is, of course, difficult to see, but I regard the improvement as a positive merit for him. He has already served on the ArbCom so there should not be too many questions about his trustworthiness and reliability. In the dispute resolution front, I was impressed with his directness and willing to take action instead of just wishing for the problem to go away. However, there are indications that he is letting his personal feelings affect his decisions: on several occasions he has expressed annoyance and threatened with action because is "tired" of dispute. During one of the latest EEML appeal threads, he threatened to use "tactical nuke" level measures if the battleground doesn't stop. The question arises, will these sanctions, if implemented, be based on real and concrete evidence about the editors, or will they be based on his personal feeling of annoyance? Despite this, I believe he is strong and skilled in dispute resolution, and I did not see real problems in his consistency or fairness yet. Perhaps more experience as arbitrator will iron out the remaining problems. Overall, a high quality candidate, especially when compared to most of others in this year's election. | Support
| |
| Stephen_Bain • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[20] A, (ex)Arb | 12024 | 2004-10-08 | Did a good job in going through the massive amount of evidence and drafting the proposals during the EEML case, something which I feel the other arbitrators were not willing to do. Looking over his other cases, I liked the consistency in his votes and decisions. There are questions whether he would able to spend enough time in arbitrator activities if elected, especially due to his recent inactivity. However, he has promised that, if elected, he would "be more than capable of devoting the necessary time and attention to arbitration work." I guess this promise is enough for me. I really liked his answer to my question about ArbCom's decision making speed. He recognizes one of the main problems, namely ArbCom's slowness and is honest of his own shortcomings in this respect. He is a former arbitrator and therefore trustworthy. I like his track record of dispute resolution. Since he has written draft proposals for several important arbitration cases, I'm convinced of his research and decision-making ability. | Support
| |
| Xeno • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
[21] A,B | 82632 | 2006-07-14 | Undecided |