 |
Notes: These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides are welcome for inclusion.
|
Criteria
editI'm taking the simplistic approach and analyzing candidates according to three criteria:
- How closely he/she adheres to what I think are sound encyclopedia building principles (too much drama - bad; lots of reasoned content additions - good)
- Whether he/she is willing to think 'out of the box' (too much adherence to the letter of the policy - bad)
- Whether he/she will add incremental value to the process (gotta have a diversity of personality styles - productive personality styles - on arbcom).
Rating
editTotally unscientific. I evaluate each candidate per the three criteria above and plonk them into three buckets:
- Support: A rating of 6 to 10. 10 = fantastic candidate, 6=support with a few reservations
- Neutral: A rating of 5. Mostly, because I don't know enough about the candidate to decide so I'll just let others decide
- Oppose: A rating of 1 to 4. 1 = bad idea seeing the candidate on arbcom, 4 = marginal oppose
The totally unscientific guide to arbcom candidates
edit| Candidate | Bottom line | Rating | Thoughts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balloonman (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Withdrawn | ||
| Casliber (talk · contribs · count · block log) |  Mild Support
|
6 | I'll be honest and say that I haven't got the time to fully evaluate this last candidate (I would have liked to investigate better the resignation). But, the answers to questions are comforting, especially the 'strict vs. lenient' one (here) and the responses to EdChem (here). |
| Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Mild Support
|
6 | Another candidate I know little about. But, responses to questions are good and thoughtful. See especially, response to Sven Manguard's questions 1 and 2 here and the various content ruling question responses here. |
| David Fuchs (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Mild Support
|
6 | To be honest, I find the answers a tad unclear. But, he's been around a while, I've usually seen only sensible comments from him, and (now that I've peeked) other editors that I respect like him, so why not? |
| Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Mild Support
|
6 | Will think things through and will always work from basic principles. A bit acerbic at times and the short tenure is the big concern here but her responses to questions were well constructed. I'd risk it. |
| FT2 (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Support
|
7 | I don't think I've come across FT2 before but the answers to the questions are probably the most comprehensive of all the candidates. That alone should be enough but I like the thoughtful nature of the responses. Read particularly the response to general question 3 and the response to the tendentious editor question here. Feels like a stronger support is warranted but I know so little about this editor .... |
| Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · count · block log) |  Oppose
|
3 | Means well I'm sure but too quick on the block button and loves to lecture. Good admin but probably won't add value to the arb process. |
| GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Strong Support
|
8 | Much maligned, much blocked. Let's face it, would I want to see 10 Giano's on arbcom - no way. But, when I ask myself - would I like to see one Giano on arbcom then, to my surprise, the answer is a resounding yes. Honest, speaks his/her mind, wary of authority (read: admins), and ask the questions that no one else thinks of asking. One of my top candidates. |
| Harej (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Mild Oppose
|
4 | Seems like a reasonable and long term editor but I don't see much evidence of depth. I don't think Harej is a dangerous choice but suspect that it will be an innocuous one. If drama reduction was the only goal ....! |
| Iridescent (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Very Strong Support
|
9 | Very impressive candidate. I particularly liked the responses to individual questions 1, 3, 5 and 9 (here). And Ncmvocalist q 1, skomorokh 1, (and Lar 11 and Sven 6 all here). Definitely a must have. |
| Jclemens (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Mild Oppose
|
4 | Good admin but too process and 'letter of the law' focused. Won't add much value to the arb set. |
| John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Mild Oppose
|
4 | A little uneasy about supporting a candidate who has resigned very early once and who appears to be busy in RL for the short-term future (who knows what rl commitments the long run will bring). There is also the non-answer to the Moni3 question ... (Individual question 1 here). |
| Loosmark (talk · contribs · count · block log) | fuggedaboutit
|
1 | Well, I say what? (See this) |
| Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Strong Support
|
8 | Measured, thoughtful, and competent. Would love to have 60% (but no greater!) of the arbcom consist of Newyorkbrad types. The only reason to vote oppose is if you want a change. |
| Off2riorob (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Strong Oppose
|
2 | I dunno. Could add a dose of fireworks to arbcom but not sure if the outcome would be better. |
| PhilKnight (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Mild Support
|
6 | I am favorably inclined toward this candidate but find responses to questions a bit confusing and unclear. Could be just me. However, on reading this I think a move to the support column is in order. |
| Sandstein (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Neutral | 5 | Can't figure this one out. I like the answers to questions but it isn't enough to figure out a candidate I know little about. Not sure if he/she will (or will not) add incremental value to the process. |
| Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Strong Support
|
8 | Willing to call a spade a spade and a duck a duck. Works from first principles and has done good work on arbcom. |
| SirFozzie (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Support
|
7 | Generally favorably inclined based on comments seen on arb cases. But, again, am honestly unable to do a full analysis. Moving up to a stronger support based on response to my question 11. (Here.) |
| Stephen Bain (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Mild Oppose
|
4 | Recent editing history is too light. [1] |
| Xeno (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Mild Support
|
5 | Workhorse admin with a strong favorable affect. I like Xeno but am underwhelmed by the responses to questions. Still, past experience and my gut tells me that this will be a good person to have on arbcom (I did say 'unscientific'!) |