User:JayHenry/arb

JayHenry	Opuses	Arb	Boxes	Commons	Talk
While other guides should be treated as purely subjective, this guide may be considered authoritative. ArbCom has improved greatly in the past year, yet there is still great room for improvement. Since these people are running for ArbCom there is no need to pull punches in discussing them. By the way, if anyone has thoughts, I invite you to share them on my talk page. If you think I'm off the mark, I want to know. Transparency — Perhaps the greatest improvement needed is in transparency. The Arbs are spending too much of their time, and having too much discussion off wiki. Privacy has become a bogeyman that they apply in cases where it is clearly irrelevant. This, of course, lessens the security surrounding those cases where privacy actually does matter. We are trying to create an encyclopedia, not play some MMORPG cloak-and-dagger game of espionage and intrigue. Worse, these games are wasting their time. Time to start behaving like adults and leave the secret machinations to your Warcraft guild's plotting against the Horde. Temperance — Secondly, we must be vigilant about keeping the ArbCom free of the hysterical moral panic that characterizes some of our more heated discussions. A sense of perspective is critical, but we've seen too many otherwise intelligent people go off the deep end when they become convinced that the crisis du jour is the most important thing ever. It never is. These histrionics tend to set back progress rather than advance it. Radicals are sometimes right, and it's precisely when you agree with them that you must try to stop them before they undermine the cause. It is a lesson for radicals in nearly all walks of life that their hysteria is, almost without fail, counterproductive; of course, the very essence of ineffectual radicals is usually their immunity to the obvious. Editors unable to collaborate — At some point, we have to recognize that certain people and certain personality types are simply unable to function well in a collaborative environment. We have an encyclopedia to work on. Our system is a collaborative one, so unfortunately even brilliant human beings who are endlessly abusive, offensive, toxic or immune to feedback aren't going to be able to help us. People who do like to collaborate are extremely put off by streams of abuse. Thus, the Main Space contributions of an editor could look fantastic, but if they are relentlessly unable to collaborate, they end up being an enormous net negative to the project.

Candidates

Support

Cla68

The privacy of the ballot box is a funny thing. When I saw the screen I just decided to go with my gut and support Cla, one of the project's great content editors. He is controversial, yes, but I don't think he would abuse the trust of his position and I believe he would serve the community well. He has the drive to really make some corrections. Looking at those little boxes, my choice was clear.

Coren

I think it would be a mistake to vote against someone who is as reasonable as this. One of the best skills that an arbitrator can have is the ability to explain their opinions especially to someone who disagrees. By all accounts, a productive member of the most recent class of arbs.

Kirill Lokshin

You know, I think Kirill has made some mistakes. But when one of those mistakes got too big he had the integrity to admit the error and step down. Question 19 here is Kirill's version of what went down. Kirill's essay On Professionalism does not mention the standards of professionalism that we should ask of arbitrators, but he's basically a living example of it. While some people see this episode as a blackmark, it is in fact the opposite. Kirill was a workhorse before, one of the only bright spots on the committee in its darkest days. As a community, we should be grateful to have him back.

KnightLago

Appears to be thoughtful, competent, sober, and sufficiently engaged with the encyclopedia side of things. I sorta share Sandy's concern about whether he has the cojones. Arbitrators are given long terms so that they have the ability to make tough decisions, and although I'm not sure KnightLago will be leading the charge on tough decisions, I definitely trust him with the bulk of arbitrator responsibilities. Good Q&A is the deciding factor here.

MBK004

See also User:MBK004/Platform. Ah, what the heck, support. I'm a little worried the candidate will be too timid when faced when the most powerful Wikipedian factions clash on RFAR (as they inevitably do), but the candidate believes he will tend to be too strict. We'll see.

Though young, the candidate seems sharp, informed, independent-minded and professional. I think he's likely to be a work horse, not a show horse, who quietly keeps things chugging along. Frankly, I'm not confident that he'll be a great arb, but I'm confident that he won't be a bad one.

Ruslik

Rightfully notes that the committee oftentimes still struggles to identify extreme fringe POV pushing and so a scientist might help. The community of administrators is still terrible at identifying people who contribute primarily nonsense. I'm less concerned about this than I used to be, however, as I think the current Arbs are aware of the extreme failure on this issue in the past. Also Ruslik is a very real content contributor.

I found his Q&A very refreshing. He is a very thoughtful editor and while familiar with Wikipedia's issues he does not simply reiterate the shibboleths of most Metapedians (using Metapedian loosely here). If you read his Q&A you'll see what I mean.

Steve Smith

A solid encyclopedia editor whose q&a reveals an exceptionally thoughtful and level-headed editor. I particularly like the considered and nuanced thinking evident in his answers to Lar's questions. I notice this candidate has a remarkable ability to express nuanced opinions with concision. Much better at it than I am. All in all I am comfortable supporting this candidate.

Wehwalt

It's always important to have real content contributors on the committee. I'm impressed with his answers in the Q&A where he shows a clear ability for independent thought and also the requisite toughness. I think he will make a solid arbitrator.

Oppose

AGK

Unfortunately, we have decided to embrace opaque elections under the guise of "democracy". It is thus absolutely imperative that we end the massive threat of conflict of interest and assault on checks and balances that are created by users with multiple roles. Editors who care about the integrity of the encyclopedia must oppose editors with too many roles. This has never been as important as it is now that ArbCom elections may be seen only by a secret council.

AGK objected to my concern here. He said "Your concerns about the concentration of power are valid. I just don't think they apply to me, as this is the first elected office I have ran for since my RfA over two years ago." I gave him a chance to clarify before posting here because this answer is simply not true. He's run for bureaucrat (twice in fact) and also run on Meta in that time.

Fred Bauder

Mackensen, a former arb who I respect quite a bit, says this in response to my initial observation: "Fred made quite a few enemies during his tenure (as did many of us), but he did real yeoman work while on the committee."

I suspect this is true and I feel a bit bad about this. Fred is, on balance, quite thoughtful. But I think there are just too many still-open wounds from his time on the committee. Mantanmoreland, the badsites moral panic, and a few other episodes from this era were the apex of insane WikiPolitics. I think some of the community still needs time to heal.

Fritzpoll

The "what would I do differently" bit in his statement is actually sort of interesting.

Reviewing his edits he's really only been active for 20 months. His answers to the questions are mostly adequate, but I often came away feeling I just wasn't sure where exactly he stood. On balance this is someone who's not quite experienced enough with a rich enough philosophy for me to feel comfortable supporting. In the future, sure.

Hersfold

Unfortunately, we have decided to embrace opaque elections under the guise of "democracy". It is thus absolutely imperative that we end the massive threat of conflict of interest and assault on checks and balances that are created by users with multiple roles. Editors who care about the integrity of the encyclopedia must oppose editors with too many roles. This has never been as important as it is now that ArbCom elections may be seen only by a secret council.

Mailer diablo

Unfortunately, we have decided to embrace opaque elections under the guise of "democracy". It is thus absolutely imperative that we end the massive threat of conflict of interest and assault on checks and balances that are created by users with multiple roles. Editors who care about the integrity of the encyclopedia must oppose editors with too many roles. This has never been as important as it is now that ArbCom elections may be seen only by a secret council.

Seddon

One of the main concerns with this guy is he's not active enough. He's had pretty low engagement with the encyclopedia for example which is an immediate red flag. Now, an editor wanting to combat that perception would be diligent about answering the questions thoughtfully and swiftly. Seddon has left a vast swath of the questions ignored which suggests to me that he is indeed not active enough to handle the workload in addition to not being active enough with the encyclopedia in the first place. He says in his statement, with an apparent straight face, "Too often the committee remains unresponsive". But this statement would seem to be a joke since he ignores so many questions. What, exactly, does he think the ArbCom is not responding to? Why should we be silly enough to believe that he'll ignore our questions now but once he has vastly more work he'll reverse course and become responsive? Highly unlikely. Actions speak louder than words.

Shell Kinney

Let me get this straight. In the middle of your candidacy you thought it would be really helpful to bash another candidate on some unrelated ArbCom page? This is frankly childish behavior.

SirFozzie

The privacy of the ballot box is funny in both directions. When I was sitting staring at the box I just became overwhelmed with concern about the content. Fozzie says a lot of things I agree with, but I just worry too much about someone who's not all that interested in the encyclopedia. This was the hardest oppose for me, because I think the philosophy is so close to what I want. But without that foundation of loving the content itself, I just couldn't pull the trigger.

Unomi

Not to be confused with umami.

Wehwalt

I'm simply gobsmacked by this thread. I clearly did not do my due diligence on Wehwalt. Nearly every comment he makes in this thread is ill-considered, and he caps it off by ignoring consensus to unblock what appears to be a racist troll? And he does it in the middle of his own ArbCom election which suggests he lacks the ability to think tactically as well as sensibly. I am changing my vote to oppose. Completely stunned by the massive lack of judgment on display in that thread. The behavior on this thread is the exact opposite of what I'm looking for in an Arb.

William M. Connolley

Initial reaction is one of concern.

Separate observation:

• William Connolley — notable arb? Hmm. If elected, should his article note that he is a Wikipedia arbitrator?

My instinct is to oppose, but I feel a bit ambivalent about it. Connolley is right that an important skill for arbs is "Not wasting time on pointless matters." He also seems to have the strongest instincts to get things back on Wiki. I am satisfied with his content contributions and also think he's right that "Wiki needs to find a way to attract and retain experts" as one of our absolute most important tasks. Whether Connolley himself really ought to have an article is, I think, debatable. But generally he's the sort of editor we need more of.

That said, he seems perhaps too prickly. Look here: an editors asks "What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity...?" A typo, yes, though the meaning is clear. Connolley responds "I can't parse 'do you commit to observe to maintain' as it stands. Assuming that you mean 'do you commit to to observe and to maintain', then: then I would say that..." Unless WMC was going for satire that's not a rejoinder that speaks well of him.

'... to to observe and to mantain', then: then...

I admire the moxie of telling Lar, "I'm not very interested in BLP ... I excuse this because many other people appear to be very interested in it so there is no lack." Getting to a solution on BLP requires editors who are not hysterical, not melodramatic, not paranoid, and not holier-than-thou about it. Hysteria, melodrama, paranoia and I-am-holier-than-thou are the reason we haven't yet gotten a better solution to this very real range of issues.

But, finally, I will oppose here, noting it's been a tough decision. His behavior that landed him before ArbCom ultimately merited the desysopping he got. Maybe with more water beneath that bridge, the good will outweigh the negative, but for now the ArbCom case is too recent and the desysopping too warranted.

Xavaxgoem

I don't think ArbCom-MedCom relations is something that matters. Yet this is the only change the candidate would wish to make? I see this as akin to running for president in order to build a railroad from Chicago to Washington. It might be a good idea, but the president needs to have loftier ambitions than only this.

Very Strong Oppose

Chutznik

Oh geez, this is User:Shalom. Absolutely, absolutely not.[2] I rarely say never, but this is a never.

Jehochman

Incredibly unimpressive behavior during the elections.

On further thought, his behavior during this process has been so unimpressive that I am symbolically moving this editor to strong oppose.

Kmweber

This is exactly the sort of worthless troll that ArbCom needs to dispose of. Unprincipled, incoherent, here to play games not build an encyclopedia. Has not made a positive contribution to the project in years. Evidence suggests he simply lacks the capacity to do anything helpful.

I've seen scattered comments about the place that this is a smart editor -- on what evidence was that conclusion reached? It may be true, I suppose, but I see no more reason to believe it here than to believe it about the wild-eyed man preaching to nobody on a street corner in New York City.

RMHED

Obviously not. I see this user has the porn trolling scrubbed from his userpage a few weeks ago.[3] Overall impression? Yawn.

Secret

Completely unstable. Barely literate statement: "closing some of the continuous AFDs and MFDs this project ever seen"? Fixed up his statement.

Secret pointed me to his answer to Wehwalt which sort of addresses the stability. It sounds as if he's in a better, less stressed-out place in real life, and I hope this translates to Wikipedia. However, I'm going to be voting for editors that have a long track record of stability rather than those who promise to develop one. If a year or two down the road I've seen tremendous change from the past I'm very open to reconsidering, but we have nothing at all to go on for now. I will observe that if one is looking to maintain a less stress-filled life, running for and serving on Wikipedia's ArbCom is probably among the worst possible ways to achieve this goal. I do wish the candidate the best in his off wiki pursuits and pray for the health of his family.

2010 votes

These were my votes:

• Shell Kinney - O, per previous
• Casliber - S, still believe this is one of our finest editors and was one of our finest arbs. Resignation showed the sort of integrity that begs for his return.
• Harej - O, not really impressed
• PhilKnight - S. I always liked Addhoc, and also partially for being unwilling to put up with Lar's nonsense. Lar probably means well, but his questions are tedious grandstanding. Arbitrators need to have enough moxie to be unwilling to coddle grandstanders, because otherwise whoever grandstands the loudest ends up with the most power and this is not a healthy development for the project.
• Off2riorob - O, not impressed at all
• FT2 - O, full of drama and doesn't seem to realize it's his own fault.
• Loosmark - O, too fishy
• Elen of the Roads - O, also too fishy. I see a lot of people I trust supporting, but I just don't feel like this user has enough track record with the project.
• Sandstein - S, partially for the same reasons as PhilKnight, to be honest
• Georgewilliamherbert - O
• GiacomoReturned - S, per general "sunlight is the best disinfectant" type reasoning
• Xeno - O, has enough hats now
• John Vandenberg - S, always been impressed by his integrity
• SirFozzie - S, regret opposing last time
• David Fuchs - S, a true builder
• Iridescent - O, has always seemed to have one standard for friends -- and a very different standard for the rest of us
• Jclemens - S
• Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry - S, like his steez
• Newyorkbrad - S, disturbing to see anyone opposing, frankly. It's not as if I agree with everything he's said over the years, but has anyone tried harder to improve the communications and tenor of ArbCom discussion? A tireless advocate for the best aspects of the project.
• Stephen Bain - O, those concerned about inactivity seem correct
• Balloonman - O, per long years of silly antics at RFA