User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris/ACE2010

Preface

As others have noted there are not enough good (or even acceptable) candidates to fill all the vacant slots. So this election promises an exciting and drama-filled aftermath.

Below I direct how you must vote. A brief explanation of priorities:

• Returning arbitrators: My default position for current or past arbitrators seeking re-election is Oppose. The committee benefits from fresh perspectives. While this is my default position it is not a strict rule.

• Criteria: The trend toward professional Wikipoliticians who contribute little of substance is a bad sign. Candidates who do not have significant records of content creation (not necessarily Featured Articles or Good Articles) have no business making decisions that affect those who do.

• Comments, questions, and complaints: If you want to comment on any of my evaluations by all means go ahead and do so on this page's Talk. In particular, if you're a candidate and want to clarify or dispute something feel free to say your bit. If I don't respond please don't take it as a lack of interest -- sometimes I'll simply let a rebuttal stand. The recommendations below are apt to shift around as I take others' views into account.

"Abstain" means either that I haven't yet looked closely at this candidate, or that I haven't yet determined whether to support, oppose, or abstain. I'm undecided which.

Full disclosure: for tactical reasons my actual votes may differ slightly from those listed below.

Currently running

User	Statement and Questions	Comments	Vote
Casliber  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Former arb but had the integrity to resign when he felt circumstances called for it.	Support
Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Not seeing anything that would make me support. His response to NW's question here is conspicuous in its absence. Avoiding a tough question? That's what we don't need in an arbitrator.	Oppose
David_Fuchs  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Responses to questions are mostly good. I've encountered him from time to time and he appears to be not insane. He also has a solid record of contributing content. But nothing screams "Yes! I must vote for this man!" As one of the better candidates in a weak pool it's probably wise to support him over some of the awful ones that stand a chance of being elected. That's not much of an endorsement, but eh.	Support
Elen_of_the_Roads  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Not insane. Good content contributor. But not enough of a track record for me to support. We've had arbs blow up on us before, so we need more familiarity with you. Try again later (and no, that's not a brushoff).	Oppose
FT2  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Returning former arb; default to Oppose. Despite his less-than-stellar record as an arb his ideas for devolving certain activities now handled by Arbcom are good and need to be implemented. There has been steady mission creep over the years so that Arbcom's core responsibility of deciding cases has suffered.	Oppose
Georgewilliamherbert  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Often seen around WP:ANI and similar locations. Perhaps too often? Anybody with a fascination for nuclear weapons can't be all bad. Needs a closer look.	Abstain
GiacomoReturned  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Yeah, he's a drama magnet and sometimes comes across as self-impressed. But he would provide a much needed alternative voice within the committee. Giano will tell you right out what he thinks. Even when disagreeing I seriously doubt he'll lie to me, which is more than I can say for several of the current Arbitrators. Anyway if it turns out badly he's only one of 18.	Support
Harej  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Seems like a decent enough fellow but the near-total lack of content work is a deal breaker. Only about 100 article edits in the past year, the vast majority being non-substantive stuff like moves. Sorry.	Oppose
Iridescent  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Leaning support, sort of. Maybe. OK-ish record on content -- lots and lots of gnoming with AWB and a relative shortage of substance, but those tweaks still are worth doing. Despite my overall favorable impression something... doesn't quite seem right. But I'm not sure what. Will need to check further; perhaps it was something he (she) said at Wikipedia Review? All I've been able to find is this which is thin pickings. In the end one of his (her) meatpuppets principled supporters acquiesced to my conditions[1] so he (she) gets my vote. Still, something is making me uneasy about this one so I may change at the last minute.	Support
Jclemens  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Some are supporting because he has a science background. I have nothing against scientists, but that's not what it takes to be a good arbitrator. Responses to several of the standard and one-off questions are concerning; e.g., "private correspondence" and "outing" show what I believe is excessive regard for legal and policy issues rather than genuine concern for the fact that there are real people behind the usernames.	Oppose
John_Vandenberg  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Returning former arb. Defaulting to Oppose.	Oppose
Loosmark  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Overtaken by events.	Oppose
Newyorkbrad  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	A tougher call than I thought it would be. Fair minded and a great guy, but is he too nice? I've found him loath to enforce deadlines and limits during Arbcom cases. While it's perhaps good that he doesn't want to be a stickler for rules, this has also let evidence and workshop pages spin out of control. He also had a hand in drafting the original proposed decision for the infamous climate change case, which was so slapdash and filled with basic factual errors that it was hard to take as a good-faith effort. Despite these concerns he's needed on the committee as a counterbalance to... certain other members, enough so that I'm breaking my default position for current and former arbs.	Support
Off2riorob  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Impetuous. Serious concerns over judgment and partiality.	Oppose
PhilKnight  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Reasonable amount of content work. But answers to questions are weak -- especially the non-answer to the "success in handling cases" question. If his answer there is what he really believes, that's even worse. This prolix maundering doesn't speak well to his communication skills.	Oppose
Sandstein  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	My experience is that he is rigid and a poor communicator. I'm concerned that he'd veer off into an attitude of "kill them all; GodJimbo will know his own."	Oppose
Shell_Kinney  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	One of the better arbs in the current group, though the dustup with User:SandyGeorgia did not cast her in a good light. Her actions in the Rlevse brouhaha reinforced the common perception of a Blue Wall around the committee. I think she's a decent person but ultimately there's not enough to sway me from my default position for current and returning members.	Oppose
SirFozzie  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Default to Oppose, though I would Oppose anyway on the merits. My rationale from way back in 2008 still applies.	Strong Oppose
Stephen_Bain  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	Returning former arb; defaulting to Oppose. His prior performance was so slipshod that I would Oppose even if it wasn't the default. A mostly-inactive editor returning to run for Arbcom sets off alarm bells.	Oppose
Xeno  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions	My personal interactions with him have been pleasant and I think he's a good editor overall. Has a solid record in article space. But his statement and responses to questions just don't have enough substance on which to make an informed decision: for example, when asked about prior cases in which Arbcom has done well or poorly, he simply responded "I haven't followed any cases in detail." He also admits the time commitment could be a problem. Really sorry about this one.	Oppose