User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes

Sortable results table
User:SandyGeorgia/ArbStats

ArbCom General Summary • VOTE here • Alternate results page

After 2008 proved to be ArbCom's annus horribilis, this year's ArbCom elections present the Wikipedia community at least some potential to name seven new arbs to seats currently occupied by thirteen members. I had personal experience with ArbCom after admins short-circuited normal dispute resolution processes, and I later contributed evidence about the effects of being targeted by a group of admins in a related case that highlighted ArbCom weaknesses. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, ArbCom deadlocked for four months when they combined two cases into an unnecessarily unwieldy conglomeration and then found themselves unable to reach or articulate conclusions long apparent to the community. The IRC, Mantmoreland, and implementation of the Homeopathy and other "fringe" or "pseudoscience" cases illustrate just a few other examples of ArbCom's increasing distance from the Wikipedia community and the community concern over influence wielded through backchannel or off-Wiki communication.

Time spent in these ArbCom cases is not only very unpleasant, but is time lost to productive editing, and 2008 ArbCom deliberations and decisions highlight the need for reform. It takes ArbCom months to years to reach conclusions already understood by editors who are daily "in the trenches" of article writing. A first step on the reform path is balancing the composition of ArbCom towards less bureaucratic policy wonkery and more common sense editors who are on Wiki to write an encyclopedia.

After spending too much of 2008 dealing with the impact of Wiki's broken dispute resolution processes in general, and ArbCom in particular, this year, I will generally (allowing for the rare exception) consider the following factors as important towards restoring needed balance to ArbCom:

Transparency. On several occasions, I've been exposed to several backchannel groups or "cliques" and their methods. Concerns about confidentiality of ArbCom communications caused me to limit evidence submitted in one case, so I will be looking for a proven commitment to on-Wiki transparency. If I have indications that a candidate frequently operates backchannel or as part of a group, I'm unlikely to Support, and may Oppose.
Community contact. Three years on ArbCom is a very long time in internet years, and can lead to a loss of contact with the editors who are "in the trenches", daily contributing quality content and dealing with issues that affect good faith editors. As the community evolves and changes, and ArbCom members see the worst of the worst in nasty cases, they can lose contact with the issues facing the community and a sense of the importance of expediency and how disruptive it can be to spend time before ArbCom. This effect can be compounded if a member never had extensive contact to begin with "in the trenches" of article writing, so I am looking for candidates who have significant time spent in article contributions or demonstrated leadership and involvement at, for example, the WikiProject level.
Policy wonkery. How effective a candidate is at policy wonkery is exactly what I'm not looking for this year. ArbCom has lost contact with the community. This year, I don't think we need candidates who spend most of their time at AN/I: I'm looking for extensive community involvement and content contributions.
Writing skills. There were several indications during 2008 that ArbCom Proposed decisions were held up because, simply, no one could effectively articulate the proposals, and most of the writing fell to two arbs: another reason to consider a proven ability to write.
Respect for contributors and sourcing. A lamentable and arrogant tone has taken over some corners of ArbCom and AN/I. I've seen arbs write demeaning, dismissive and derisive responses that deliver a clear message of "Do Not Pursue This Line of Questioning Or You Will Be Dealt With". I've seen arbs drop F-bombs into conversations. Recently, ArbCom decisions have had the effect of extending their influence over article editing in ways that impact top contributors and may place them on equal footing with tendentious editors. I've seen too many instances at WP:AN/I where admins were dismissive of concerns of top content contributors or disrespectful and unconcerned about the impact that admin decisions, sometimes delivered without prudent consideration of all factors, may have on editors or articles. That the question of what constitutes a "solid editor" even has to be raised in relationship to prior ArbCom cases is troubling. That the blindingly apparent answer had to provided by someone who isn't even an admin highlights why I'm looking for candidates this year who are in the trenches, contributing content at the highest levels.

Strong support

My Strong support goes to candidates with:

Significant FA-level content contributions
Significant participation in dispute resolution or some previous leadership role on Wiki
No deviations from the concerns I outlined above, to my knowledge
Demonstrated balance, integrity, civility, and awareness of policy and issues facing top content contributors.
Note A: If a strong candidate lacks FA-level contributions, in order to earn my support, I must have seen in my personal experience with that editor no obvious deficiencies in character, integrity or policy understanding; extensive indications that they understand policy well, particularly as it affects top content contributors; unfailing demonstration of civility and AGF; a clear benefit to Wikipedia in some way independent from content contributions; and evidence that the editor is throughtful, careful, deliberative, insightful, or in some way brings extraordinary value to deliberations that outweigh the lack of FA-level contributions. In short, I believe that NYB is the exception rather than the norm, and very few candidates with no FA-level contributions will have demonstrated the qualities I seek to endorse in an arb.

Risker

Risker frequents FAC as a copyeditor, reviewer and contributor, and has a good amount of contributions at the top content levels (FA/GA). Editing since December 2005, she has 45% mainspace contributions and a good balance in editing areas. She has maintained a healthy level of involvement at both WP:RFAR and WP:ANI, while still managing about six times as many contributions to articles as to AN. I have never been aware of her demonstrating any concerning policy gaffes, lack of civility or decorum, or unnecessary rubbernecking and insensitivity at WP:AN/I or WP:RFAR. I believe she would bring balance, writing skills, dedication and civility to ArbCom, and ArbCom needs a mature female who hasn't fallen prey to that damsel-in-distress meme that so many other female editors bought in to, resulting in backchannel cliques and cults of secrecy (see my Criterion 1).

Rlevse

Rlevse has clearly demonstrated the ability to juggle dispute resolution and admin tasks with WikiProject leadership and article writing. He has numerous FAs to his credit, and significant contributions to WP:SCOUT, yet he never lost contact with article contributions while serving as an ArbCom clerk and later bureaucrat and checkuser, maintaining over 40% article space contributions even with his other responsibilities. In other words, Rlevse has already walked the walk and shown that he still had article contributions as a priority, with twice as many mainspace as AN edits, and all five of his top five articles attaining featured status. His candidate statement says, "However, I am still grounded in what we are here for—building an encyclopedia": he's already evidenced this, so we can believe his campaign promise. Rlevse represents a balance in someone who already has a notion of the workload involved at ArbCom, but also has a history of community and article work. I don't believe Rlevse will contribute to the concerns about ArbCom distance from the community or an arrogant dismissive attitude.

Roger Davies

Following in the footsteps of another excellent MilHist coordinator turned arb, and similar to Rlevse (see above), Roger Davies has already shown that he can walk the walk. He is a frequent contributor to FAC at every level (administrative drudgery, reviewing, copyediting, and 4 FA nominations). Editing since 2005, Roger has over 40% article space contributions while maintaining responsibilities as a MilHist coordinator. His low participation at the Administrators' noticeboards may be a concern for some: I have had his talk page watchlisted since becoming FAC delegate and have no doubts about his grasp of policy, his civility, his dispute resolution skills, or his dedication and integrity. He enjoys great respect from those who know him and have worked with him, and I expect he will serve ArbCom in the MilHist tradition of Kirill.

Support

My Support goes to candidates with:

Significant FA-level content contributions
No deviations from the concerns I outlined above, to my knowledge
Demonstrated civility, and awareness of policy and issues facing top content contributors
An imbalance in editing stats or less experience in dispute resolution areas than the candidates I strongly support, but would still make a fine arb.

Casliber

Casliber stands above any other FA contributor, as the fungus, bird, dinosaur, planet, animal and bio/medical Renaissance man of featured articles. Editing since mid-2006, he has about 70% mainspace contributions and is one of Wiki's leading producers of Featured articles, collaborating on 23 FAs. His good nature, dedication to content contributions, and the respect he enjoys among those who know and have worked with him is legend. He doesn't make my Strong support category only because he has so much article space work (15 times as many edits to his top five articles as at Administrator's noticeboards) and no significant leadership role in any given area, but this is a logical result of having spread his work across so many different content areas. Having edited numerous (and some controversial) articles together, my personal concern about Casliber is that, when confronted with disruptive or tendentious editors, he tends to be too nice!! I hope he doesn't get into the halls of ArbCom, observe some of the nastiness and run screaming from the building. No doubt, it will serve ArbCom well to have someone who is so considerate and ethical in their midst, and, well, does anyone doubt that ArbCom can use the services of a psychiatrist? Cheers!

Jehochman

Jehochman has spent too much time at AN/I and is perceived as a policy wonk, but 1) he also has good FA and GA-level contribs, and 2) he doesn't rely heavily on backchanneling as some others do. He gets my cojones vote, because he will stand up to address some of the bigger issues facing Wiki. If you don't know what those are, it won't help for me to explain them.

Update. Jehochman withdrew. Cojones work against those editors who get crossways with the backchannel rumormongering world of Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Moral support

Moral support goes to candidates who may not meet my criteria for top content contributions but who have demonstrated that they may bring some extraordinary value to deliberations that outweighs their lack of top content contributions and may help address the issues and deficiencies in the current ArbCom composition discussed above.

Cool Hand Luke

Very fine candidate, the most clueful candidate statement, and his work on the Mantanmoreland ArbCom alone should earn him a spot. If he had higher top content contribs, he'd be in my Support column; if he appears electable, I'll likely switch to support.

Update. A few days into the elections, looking at the remaining candidates who appear to be electable, I am moving CHL from "Lean support" to Support. The elections appear headed in the right direction in terms of good representation of editors who have top content contributions and better balance on ArbCom, so my emphasis on FA-level contribs is addressed and CHL's relative lack of FA-level contributions is not a big concern for me now. Rather, his experience with and input to a difficult ArbCom (Mantanmoreland) is the factor that would make him a helpful addition to ArbCom. Practical, clear thinking, and has clue; his skills would be useful considering ArbCom appears headed towards a better balance now. (And I've noted that a number of the opposes are based on blatantly false information and troubling well poisoning.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Fat Man

I've seen TFM's candidacy described by less clueful opiners as a "joke"; the joke is really on those who can't or don't "get it" or who have been on the receiving end of his ponderous posts, which always include an insightful, exquisitely composed dose of "the truth that hurts". TFM has a finely honed BS meter, a love of the Wiki and of productive Wiki editors, and a low tolerance to suffer fools; when combined with his oversized sense of dignity, gentlemanly chivalry, a propensity towards defense of the downtrodden, and his portundly generous heart, a post from TFM shines a light on people or policies that send his BS meter into the red zone. I suggest all voters spend some serious time reviewing his responses to questions for the candidates to form their own opinions. (One question asks him to "estimat[e] how users may react to a given response"; TFM is one of those users who doesn't need to explain how to interpret human nature; he intuits it, it's part of his nature.)

His Corpulence seems to be one of those editors who somehow is everywhere and aware of all of the goings on that matter on Wiki: fully in touch with the community. About a year ago, I thought I was quietly toiling away at mentoring a very difficult new editor; most days, the time it took to work with this editor made me want to tear my hair out, but she didn't seem to be a bad faith user and I suspected she could be turned around. I doubt if many of my closest Wiki collaborators noticed my work with this editor, and I can't fathom why this particular issue would register with an editor I didn't interact with. The Fat Man not only noticed my efforts; he apparently put his observations together with potential portrayals of me as unempathic towards or not understanding of people with neurological differences (diffs withheld so as not to drag up past ArbComs), and then brought his observations to my defense in an ArbCom. I thought it remarkable that someone who didn't even know me noticed and made these connections, particularly at a time when I felt rather abandoned by Wiki's broken dispute resolution procedures. This guy gets it; particularly, he gets what it's like to be excoriated before ArbCom and AN/I—a characteristic that could be helpful to ArbCom.

I later observed more of his rotund knowledge of Wiki goings on, and that when he dropped the "obligatory Fat Man insolence" and spoke plainly, not only did his common sense appreciation for the Wiki and its editors emerge (diff withheld, my archive 28), but TFM could really write! I encouraged TFM to add his talents to the collaborative effort to bring Ima Hogg to featured status for April Fools Day. I received copies of his correspondence to the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, when he procured the lead image for the article, meaning, I've seen his serious writing and can expose the fine gentleman that is hiding behind the veneer of a trolling jokester. TFM then largely wrote the April Fool's day mainpage blurb, which received some nice reviews.[1] [2]

Whether or not a non-admin is electable, this porcine personality and his insight into editors, their motives, Wiki policies, and Wiki or ArbCom weaknesses is a force to be reckoned with: he's got the real skinny on what matters to Wiki and to ArbCom. Ignore him at your own peril.

Vassyana

Still working (sorry y'all fell at the end of the alphabet!)

Update. Vassyana has solid contribs and good participation at FAC and in all forms of dispute resolution, even though he hasn't brought an article to FA level (hence didn't get my support per my initial criteria). One week into the elections, it appears that the composition of the next ArbCom will include sufficient representation of top content contributors, so my concerns about those who don't have high FA/GA-level contribs is lessened and my other concerns about ArbCom composition have come to the forefront. Scruples, integrity, respect for the principles upon which Wikipedia is theoretically based, and evidence of good character and moral composition are qualities that are needed to balance some of the cronyism, backchannel horsetrading, and currying of favor that seems to plague ArbCom in general, and ArbCom elections in particular. I strongly believe that Vassyana has shown the type of character that is needed to balance ArbCom. I am not saying that scruples and integrity are secondary to top content contributions; the other candidates I have supported have also shown those characteristics. Vassyana gets my support now because he demonstrates those qualities even though he doesn't have an FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

I oppose candidates with:

Fewer than 5,000 edits (I'd oppose them for admins, too); sorry, but we need to know you better, and we've seen sockpuppets and banned users pass RfA
Any significant deviation from or personal knowledge of the editor in relation to concerns about the current ArbCom and issues facing Wiki, outlined above
A significant imbalance in editing ratios, reflecting a possible lack of understanding of issues facing top content contributors or engagment with the Wiki community in mainspace, combined with a failure to meet the standard outlined above in Note A
Current arbs, for the reasons outlined above, unless there is evidence of extraordinary benefit

Carcharoth

Carcharoth has no significant top content contributions and 3 times as many posts to AN as to his top five articles (one of the highest AN to mainspace ratios); his editing numbers reinforce my impression of how Carcharoth spends his time. I've had a hard time putting words to this one, so I'll quote another editor who seems to have experienced similar: User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/ACE2008. "The common thread is that he doesn't seem to value other people's time and energy -- not out of malice or arrogance, but apparently because it just doesn't register with him." This sums up my experience with Carcharoth, who seems to be well meaning, but has at times driven me to distraction with undue focus and multiple posts across many forums on issues that simply don't matter to anyone else. Many times, I've felt like I was chasing my tail over some obscure issue that Carcharoth grabbed on to and wouldn't easily let go of; this is exactly what we don't need to see on ArbCom, considering they had a problem getting decisions articulated this year. We need people who cut through BS, not create distractions. I have other concerns about transparency, having seen Carcharoth appear in the midst of discussions on forums that he rarely frequents, and I'm always concerned when someone appears to be sleuthing to come up with conclusions in areas where they just don't have the background to be drawing conclusions.

Charles Matthews

Has significant, worthy article contributions but no FA/GA, per discussion above about problems with current ArbCom composition, a year off from ArbCom to contribute some top content, re-engage with the community and mainspace would help.

Jdforrester

Completely negligible article contributions, and per demonstrated disrespect for top article contributors, recognizing two subsequently desysopped admins (FeloniousMonk and SlimVirgin) as "valued contributors", while not supporting similar wording for Cla68, one of Wiki's top FA producers. [3]

Shell Kinney

No contributions above B-class and no demonstration of understanding of issues facing content contributors, as discussed above. Concerns about pseudoscience; see User:East718/ACE2008 and User:Shot info/ACE2008. Wrote a good summary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka, but missed the bigger points entirely (see Note 5 above).

WJBscribe

See the isssues raised at User:East718/ACE2008, User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/ACE2008, User:MZMcBride/ACE2008 and User:Shot info/ACE2008. Many concerns about lack of clue, transparency, too much leeway for disruptive users, and the Elonka issues. From the moment he appeared on my talk page regarding FAC business, red flags went off about User:Archtransit (desysopped sockpuppet); WJBscribe missed it entirely, [4], and nominated Archtransit at RfA. Also, WJBscribe personally accepted a mediation case when SlimVirgin misrepresented that there had been previous RfCs (there had been none, going straight to MedCom avoided broader community feedback);[5] considering a pattern of issues, it is surprising that WJBscribe didn't investigate more closely before accepting the case.[6] With only 18% mainspace editing, WJBscribe may have lost touch with issues well understood in the community.

Lean support

Since there are seven openings on ArbCom, and there are not seven candidates who meet my Support criteria, as the elections unfold, my Support may go to candidates with:

Significant FA- or GA-level content contributions
No deviations from the concerns I outlined above, to my knowledge
Demonstrated civility, and awareness of policy and issues facing top content contributors
Worthy experience in dispute resolution processes with balance between mainspace editing and other Wiki processes

To maximize the chances that we can effect some change at ArbCom this year, a voting strategy is important; I may support candidates in this group if they appear electable.

Fish and karate

I like many of Fish and karate's positions, he has excellent content contribs, but he's spending a lot of time at AN in relation to mainspace, and I'm not yet certain he's electable.

Wizardman

Still working (sorry y'all fell at the end of the alphabet!)

Hindsight is 20–20: the Wizard should most definitely be an arb :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

I abstain (but may oppose) candidates:

With less than 5,000 edits (I'd oppose them for admins, too); sorry, but we need to know you better, and we've seen sockpuppets and banned users pass RfA
With a significant imbalance in editing ratios, reflecting a possible lack of understanding of issues facing top content contributors or engagment with the Wiki community in mainspace
That I just don't know enough about to endorse for ArbCom

AnthonyQBachler – insufficient edit history
BillMasen – insufficient edit history
Coren – Any editor who has been editing for five years will recognize there are issues "poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing", but with the highest number of edits to any article of 26, 3 times as much participation at AN as at the highest five articles edited, and no article raised above B assessment, I can't be convinced this editor can effectively apply "less timidity in addressing issues" or know how to best "be more active at curtailing content disputes".
Dream Focus – insufficient edit history
George The Dragon – insufficient edit history
Gwen Gale – doesn't have the mainspace editing I'm looking for, and too much drama, see User:East718/ACE2008, may oppose
Hemlock Martinis – excellent mainspace contributions but very little dispute resolution, need to see more
Justice America – insufficient edit history
Kmweber – limited edit history, no article contributions above B class
Lankiveil – Healthy level of contributions, but no FA/GA, and lacking in evidence of dispute resolution skills, very little participation at AN. Write an FA, participate in AN, come back next year (with a more inspiring candidate statement :-).
lifebaka – ratio, more edits at AN than to top five articles plus talk combined, needs to demonstrate more experience
Privatemusings – no article contributions above B class, extremely low mainspace editing percentage and per User:Lar/ACE2008
RMHED – no contributions above B class
Sam Korn – I've rarely encountered Sam Korn and know of nothing objectionable about his candidacy. Many editors I respect are supporting his candidacy, but I will abstain for now because his mainspace contributions aren't in the range I'm looking for, and because I'm concerned that change is urgently needed on ArbCom.
SirFozzie – Another 1 to 3 ratio, three times as many edits at AN as to the top five articles edited, article most edited still at start class, only 25% mainspace contributions. I'm looking for content contributors this year, to balance current ArbCom deficiencies.
Trojanpony – insufficient edit history
White Cat – no article contributions above B class, low mainspace representation and per User:Lar/ACE2008
WilyD – excellent mainspace contributions, but we need to know you better to elect you to ArbCom

Jayvdb

Still working. Has heavy activity at Wikisource's featured text and a featured text page there: s:Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration. Many respected editors hold Jayvdb's work in high regard, his extended candidate statement perfectly articulates the current problems, and he understands that a judge who does not establish control of the courtroom will lose respect of the participants. I'm still working through some of his responses to candidate questions, finding a few things that warrant a much closer look. Waiting for full responses to Candidate questions.

Update, moved back to abstain. Voted against most of his fellow candidates, when he was in a leading position: not a move that inspires good feelings about his character. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)