| Candidate
|
Bottom line
|
Rating
|
Thoughts
|
| Coren (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
 N Oppose
|
1
|
Well, there's this. Don't see someone with a mere 290 edits on article talk pages be effective at arbitration. How did he/she ever get elected in the first place?
|
| Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
Neutral
|
5
|
Generally favorable impression as an arb - but 5 years!! Time to move on methinks. Can't oppose though so neutral.
|
| AGK (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
 YStrong support
|
8
|
Strong statement. In particular: the support for content contributors and the recognition that though this is a vague principle it is good to keep it in mind as an arb. See also the response to question 3, question 4 (including the excellent example).
|
| Hersfold (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
Neutral
|
5
|
I'm going to sit on the fence here. I have a generally positive impression of Hersfold but the low edit count, particularly on talk pages gives me pause. And the answers to the questions (I'm only reading the mandatory ones) are best described as wishy-washy.
|
| Geni (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
NOppose
|
4
|
This editor has been around a long while which is a plus (the blocks are so old that I forgot about them the moment I saw them!). But, arbitration is a deliberative process and requires a great deal of thought to be demonstrated. Unfortunately, the responses to the questions are so cursory that I don't have the confidence that this candidate will spend a lot of time thinking about the cases that come in front of him/her.
|
| Courcelles (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
YSupport
|
6
|
Response to NW's question 3 is good. I like the nuance in the answer and suspect that the editor will be nuanced as an arb as well. Worth a shot.
|
| Risker (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
YSupport
|
6
|
Preliminary support. Risker has been a good arb overall but I'm wondering about the responses to the questions 3 and 8. Gotta mull over them a bit and I might change my opinion.
|
| Hot Stop (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
NOppose
|
3
|
Nah. I'm generally like the idea of outsiders but this one is way out on left field (or is it deep third man). Anyone who starts talking about the "little people" doesn't inspire confidence. Sorry!
|
| Jclemens (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
YSupport
|
6
|
I opposed jclemens the last time around because I felt he was "too process and 'letter of the law' focused". I've tried looking at a couple of arb cases to try and figure out whether I was right or wrong, but can't. Still, it looks like he's settling in and not doing any damage, and given that one year is a short period of time, I'm going to support this time.
|
| Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
YSupport
|
6
|
Honestly, I came here to support this editor's candidacy. However, the responses to questions give an impression of inexperience. NW's questions 2 and 3 in particular illustrate that the editor needs to spend some more time in the trenches (if I may use that metaphor). If this editor doesn't get selected this year, and sticks around on wikipedia, I suspect a different and more wiki-mature candidate will emerge next year. If he/she does get selected, then we're likely to see a bit of a learning curve. Hopefully, the curve won't be too significant and I do need an eighth candidate, so I'm going to support this one.!
|
| DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
NOppose
|
3
|
DeltaQuad is, in my opinion, a good admin and I hate to do this but the low content work makes him/her a not so good arb candidate. The answer to NW's question 4, where DQ expresses surprise that dealing with nationalistic pov pushers is not easy, is particularly illustrative. Sorry!
|
| Eluchil404 (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
NOppose
|
3
|
This is a tough one. An editor who hasn't edited much and has been MIA a lot lately should be an automatic no. But, the comments that I see here, albeit a long time ago, are clear and straightforward. So are the answers to the candidate questions today. Unfortunately, I find the clarity in the responses comes with somewhat of a lack of nuance and, in particular, the response to NW's question 3 unsettling. So, sorry.
|
| NWA.Rep (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
NOppose
|
2
|
"Little guys", "rogue admins", "average good-faith editors", all this would have sounded better if the candidate had a few edits under his or her belt. But this makes me wonder if the candidate knows what he or she is talking about. Sorry! --regentspark (comment) 02:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
|
| Roger Davies (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
YStrong support
|
7
|
No worries here. Roger Davies has been a good arb, has a strong content background. Safe bet.
|
| Kww (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
YSupport
|
6
|
I think Kww is going to be a risky but worth risking choice. The response to NW's question 4 is particularly clear, the offensive question from NWA.rep answered without rancor, andthe response to NYBrad's questions reassuring.
|
| SilkTork (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
YSupport
|
6
|
Based on what I've seen, effective and decisive behavior in several difficult cases, he'll be a definite plus. (Effective and clearsighted mentoring on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse makes this a good choice). I'd like to support stronger than this but the answers to questions are a bit vague - particularly 8(a) and 8(b), though I like the categorical response to 3.
|
| Panyd (talk · contribs · count · block log)
|
NOppose
|
3
|
I really disagree with her response to NW's question 3. Also, while outreach is good for wikipedia, I do believe it shifts the focus of a person away from content and toward an activist external role. Both jobs are important, but they're better kept separate. Sorry!
|
Oppose
Strong support