Jump to content

User:Rschen7754/ACE2014

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Previous guides: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Standard disclaimer: This represents my views and opinions, especially on Wikipedia philosophy. I encourage you to do your own research.

Background

[edit]

A bit about myself: editor since 2005, admin since 2005. I am a contributor to the U.S. Roads project and have 7 FAs and 20 GAs. I have been following virtually all the 2012/2013/2014 ArbCom cases, and have been an official party to three cases (all before 2012). I have also commented on quite a few others. I have some user rights elsewhere, and am a m:Steward for the 2013-2014 term. I served as an arbitration clerk for almost a year, but was unable to continue due to an inability to remain active in all my roles on Wikimedia.

How this guide works

[edit]

I didn't really write a guide in 2007, but have written a guide every year since 2008, so this is guide number 7. I wasn't entirely sure that I wanted to write a guide this year, due to it getting a bit old, and due to my decreased availability on Wikimedia over the last several months.

But each year I see plenty of bad guides (which shall not be named) that encourage people to vote certain ways for poor reasons. I figure that while I've never served on the Committee or as an enwiki functionary (and am happy with that), I've been around long enough and have served in other roles to where I have enough knowledge of most of the prospective candidates, have followed most of ArbCom's (public) forays, and have knowledge of relevant Wikimedia-wide policies and norms from my work as a steward, to the point where my opinions might be helpful. So I figured that I'd give it a go this year.

Serving as a steward has given me a different perspective on what makes a good arbitrator. The roles are quite different: stewards are closer to being clerks than arbitrators, since they are bound by community consensus. But it has given me a good perspective on wiki-team dynamics, as well as a lot of the issues related to serving as a functionary on Wikimedia.

As such, I've eliminated the quantitative scoring entirely this year, and am asking an entirely new set of questions to reflect this shift in perspective, and also to decrease the amount of time it takes to write this guide.

Questions

[edit]

The questions are at User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2014; since there's no rubric this year, there's no point scale posted here.

Experience

[edit]

Again, no points, but here is the stuff that I look for when looking at experience.

  • Does the editor have a FA/GA?
  • Have they been a Wikipedia editor for a decent length of time and made a proportionate amount of edits during that time?
  • Are they an administrator? How long? Have they been sanctioned, desysopped, admonished?
  • Have they participated in a formal committee that will give you experience in ArbCom?
For example, ArbCom, Bureaucrat, CheckUser, oversighter, steward, AUSC, ArbCom clerk, ArbCom-appointed groups, MedCom, Ombudsman Commission, Language Committee, OTRS admin, WMF staff/contracting, OTRS, SPI clerk, CCI clerk, featured content process delegate, MILHIST coordinator, lawyer, BAG, CU/OS on other wiki, ArbCom on other wiki, global sysop
For former roles, how did the role end?
  • Was the statement well thought out (why are they running)? Was it reasonable and not a "let's go sack ArbCom" statement?
  • Any visible problems such as RFC or ArbCom, bad block log, sock issues?
  • Any obvious problems with demeanor (contribution check or from anything I can recall)?

Results

[edit]

I will list editors in alphabetical order. Any initial comments are simply that; if you wow me with your answers to the questions, that can make a huge difference.

Recommendations are solely for suitability in a possible role as an arbitrator. Please don't take this personally!

Editor Thoughts Verdict
Calidum (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Not an admin. Ran as Hot Stop in 2011, got a very low percentage.
Questions
  • "I see the dispute between specialists and average editors to be more of a concern for the community than the committee. Arbitration should be a last resort for addressing those issues." - appears to have missed the part of the question saying that recent cases (such as Infoboxes) have had this sort of dispute
Editing record
  • Block log isn't clean, even after said 2011 election [1]
  • Besides the block log issues, he only has about 7,000 edits and would barely pass a RFA on those numbers.
Overall impression

I have nothing against non-admin candidates. But I expect that they have the same temperament as admins are expected to have, and a similar amount of experience. I don't see either here. At least this time around he's admitting his faults, as compared to his 2011 statement "Yes, I realize I was recently blocked. But I was blocked for calling a spade a spade."

Strong Oppose
Courcelles (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Was an arb 2012-2013.
Questions
  • "What I've learned is that passionate people on both sides are usually acting in good faith, and that a lot of the issues don't really have a single right answer."
  • "People that are subject experts are, I think, open to respecting the ways we do things here, but we need to be better at explaining and guiding; just as someone needs to be taught quantum mechanics, so they need taught how to edit Wikipedia."
  • "The result of the status quo is that RFA can't promote admins without candidates being nearly flawless."
Editing record
  • Served on ArbCom in 2012 and 2013.
  • Has a few GAs and some featured content, which gives him good content experience.
  • Has a good global perspective, with adminships at Commons, Meta, and Wikidata, and OS on Meta, as well as global rollback.
Overall impression

Well, I knew I would be supporting based on what I saw from him as an arbitrator: easy to work with, and willing to vote how he thought best for the encyclopedia, regardless of if it would be popular. Admittedly, I suspect that his consistent votes for banning editors may have turned some people off, but in reality a good Arbitration Committee needs people of both the "lenient" and "strict" viewpoint, to have a more moderate approach overall. He is also an experienced functionary, which is helpful experience for both handling functionary team matters as well as knowing how to use the tools. My only reservation is that I fear his activity on other wikis will probably suffer (as it did in 2014), and that he might lose some of his flags as a result of stricter inactivity policies on sister projects.

Strong support
DeltaQuad (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Long-term CU. Ran in 2011, got around 33%.
Questions
  • "We are not one without the other. Subject experts should be helping to educate the general editors in the subject matter, and the general editors helping the experts understand the standards of the wiki. ... If we forget we are here to collaborate, to build a better encyclopedia we might as well close up shop now and not waste our time."
  • Otherwise the answers are okay, a bit laconic, but okay.
Editing record
  • Besides CU and running for other things in the 2011-2012 era (ArbCom, AUSC), ran for AUSC in 2014 and was selected as the alternate (though the candidate selection was tough competition) in my opinion.
  • Resigned CU in the spring, and had it regranted over the summer due to concerns over inactivity that were eventually resolved. (I already asked a question in WP:AUSC2014 so I won't re-link it here).
  • The AUSC case that he mentioned several times speaks for itself and I have no reservations about DQ stemming from it.
  • From my observations on checkuser-l DeltaQuad works well with CUs and stewards globally, and from my experience as a SPI clerk DeltaQuad is one of the most conscientious CUs on the team.
  • With that all being said, there were a few cases where I felt he took the "easy" way out of a situation, which, while perfectly understandable, wasn't forward-thinking, and where further issues could have been avoided if things had been addressed sooner. this and the explanation bothered me big time; while it was understandable why the (100+) SPIs were closed, in the end it sent the wrong message and didn't address the underlying issues. (That wasn't the only one, but it was one that I could mention in an election guide).
Overall impression

As an enwiki CU, and one of the most active, I think he knows what he is getting into. As far as the stuff I mentioned above, yes, an ArbCom composed of 15 DeltaQuads would be a bad thing. But being on a committee of 14 other people where any one of them can (and likely do) speak out (as opposed to the functionaries team, where the people who actually read their emails are the ones deciding things) would probably be okay; usually arbs don't act on their own initiative anyway. That plus the weak candidate field, where I would rather have someone who knows to keep stuff private and knows how to work with other people on the committee than someone who can't. So, support, though it's weak.

Weak support
DGG (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Admin, but focuses mostly on content issues.
Questions
  • "Not all views are reconcilable, but most can be brought to a reasonable compromise... However, sometimes there is no consensus or compromise that will be accepted by everyone, and there are some principles which should not be compromised."
  • "All active admins make errors, and they need to learn to admit them and correct them."
Editing record
  • Focuses more on content issues as well as outreach.
  • Reading his user page can give one a good idea of his philosophy on Wikipedia, and its content.
  • OTRS activity is erratic.
Overall impression

I guess I was a bit surprised to see DGG running for the Committee. When I've interacted with him in various (usually content-related) arenas it's usually been positive, though I haven't always agreed with him. I suspect that his skills might be more useful in some of the more recent cases (i.e. Argentine History, Tea Party movement, etc.) where much of the problems relate to NPOV, BLP, RS/OR issues and the like. Sure, I think that some parts may be outside his area of expertise (i.e. dealing with some of the nastier stuff ArbCom faces, and handling functionary matters), but the positives outweigh the negatives.

Support
Dougweller (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Former Arb clerk.
Questions
  • See below.
Editing record
  • Former arb clerk, resigned in early 2012, but it does not appear to have been controversial.
Overall impression

The bad thing about not using points this year is trying to come up with a decision on candidates that you are not familiar with. That's the case for Dougweller; I can't really find anything to latch onto. He served as an arb clerk, but it was almost three years ago. His RFA was unanimous, so that at least says something. Reading through the questions doesn't give me much to go off either.

I can't find anything bad either, and he's served as a long-term admin and as a clerk knows what ArbCom does, so that'll at least push me to weak support.

Weak support
Dusti (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

I have a bad feeling about this candidacy, but I'll keep my mouth shut until after the questions are answered. (Yes, I meant to duplicate the comment below... not a good sign, really).
Questions
  • "If you have patience and you take the time to lay out your thought process for an individual who doesn't understand why you're doing what you're doing - you can almost always end a dispute." - then why do we have an ArbCom?
  • "What generally starts a controversy is the fact that some admins may get used to having the mop and get caught up in day to day operations not realizing when they're actually using the tools" misses the point entirely
  • "I'm never happy with the "status quo"."
  • "Each policy [CU and OS] is crystal clear and allows very little wiggle room to do anything outside of their scope without consequences" - not exactly
  • Overall I'm seeing a lack of understanding as to what the role is, and what goes into disputes that require arbitration.
Editing record
  • Candidate ran for RFA in 2010 (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dusti 3). Not really sure what that matters by itself... but there's 2 more before that. Sounds a bit overeager to me; now I guess that was all years ago, but then to make the jump to arbitrator...
  • Generally, I expect non-admin candidates to have extensive content contribution skills, or some overriding reason why they are comparable to the typical admin candidate, or have advantages that the other candidates do not have. I'm not seeing that here. And while I am good friends with some of the WP:ACC team, I feel that their standards for selecting new users are too low... and also some inactivity in that role too [2]
  • The block in August (3 months ago as of this writing) and the comments left by reviewing admins are very concerning: User talk:Dusti/Archive 9#August 2014 To be blunt, this would be an automatic fail at RFA.
Overall impression
  • My first interaction with Dusti was particularly negative, when I was basically told "you're doing this wrong, full stop" and demanding a particular course of action. While subsequent interactions were a bit better, this makes me completely uncomfortable with them possibly being an arbitrator.
  • Otherwise, I'm not seeing enough experience for the role, and a significant mismatch in terms of temperament required for the role. I don't expect arbitrators to be saints, but there is a certain minimum...
Strong Oppose
Euryalus (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Admin.
Questions
  • "What I've learned is that collaboration often produces stronger content than any two editors working alone"
  • "But like most admins I follow their progress to stay abreast of outcomes and sanctions, and to be aware of how they are to be applied."
  • "Case acceptance does not presuppose any finding, but the community needs to have faith in the admin team and confidence that accountability mechanisms are routinely and readily available."
Editing record
  • Has a FA.
  • OTRS activity is underwhelming.
  • Taking a glance through their talk page as well as some other research I did shows no issues.
Overall impression

I think the good content experience, good collaborative experience (especially in some somewhat contentious areas), and reasonable viewpoints will help in being an arb. The only weakness I can see is a relative lack of dealing with the "tougher" issues onwiki.

Support
Geni (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Admin, but there's some drama from the last decade that I need to look into again.
Questions
  • Short answers then (in 2011), short answers now.
Editing record
Overall impression

I'm not going to go into details here, but I feel there's a bit of a mismatch in terms of communication and interaction style, and thus I have to oppose. While he may be well-respected, I just don't think this role is a good fit for him.

Oppose
Guerillero (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Former AUSC, current OS.
Questions
  • "Neither group of editors are blamless. Subject experts can be major POV pushers (Monty Hall Problem and Tree Shaping comes to mind) and general editors can be purposefully antagonistic of people who are learned in an area of knowledge."
Editing record
  • Ran in 2012 and 2013, just missed the committee in 2013.
  • Former AUSC, current oversighter. Former Arb clerk, and did fairly well from what I can recall.
  • I took a brief look through the OS log, and don't see anything of concern, though I don't see any "tough call" actions either.
  • That being said, serving on AUSC would give more experience in that area.
Overall impression

I guess I don't have much more to say that I haven't in past years, so here's my comments from 2013:

Looking through, his answers were generally reasonable, which coincides with my interactions with him here and on Wikidata. ... But beyond that, he's proposed some concrete reforms, he's been around long enough to understand the issues that hit ArbCom the most, and he's generally been sensible in other areas, and has contributed audited content.

Support
Hahc21 (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Recent admin, current clerk.
Questions
  • "Both experts and general editors are welcomed as long as they abide to our community norms, and most of the ArbCom cases involving conflicts between them have taken place precisely because either one or both of them have failed to do so."
Editing record
Overall impression

From reading his RFA in March 2014, and from looking at his past record (where he was a bit overeager and where concerns were raised about his judgment), one would expect him to be the subject of several ANI discussions. The relative silence since then indicates to me that he's starting to mellow out.

But ugh. While he is a nice guy, and he may be ready someday, I don't think he's quite ready now, and I wish he had waited a year or two before running. That being said, I don't think he would damage the Committee, so going neutral.

Neutral
Isarra (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Not an admin. Ran last year on an... interesting platform.
Questions
  • "We need to get better at outreach and education, bringing in these subject experts to become more knowledgeable editors themselves."
Editing record
  • Not an admin here, but has OTRS access and is a coder and admin out on MediaWiki.org.
Overall impression

My comments from 2013:

Going to go neutral here. The answers to the questions were better than what I was expecting, and the humor aside, she does seem to understand quite a bit how this site works. But she doesn't have a lot of the experience that the other candidates have, and some of the answers were off (IRC is NOT something that should be regulated by ArbCom) so for now I can't support. But maybe in the future.

The candidacy is largely the same, except a different theme. My issue with it is that the first time it was funny, the second time the humor has worn off.

Weak Oppose
Kraxler (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Ran last year, and wasn't too impressed, but we'll see what this year is like.
Questions
  • Better than last year, that's for sure.
Editing record
  • Ran in 2013, and got around 37% support. Several of the answers to the questions were off.
  • While looking for something else, I noticed the candidate has <500 edits in the Wikipedia: namespace.
Overall impression

Well, his candidacy is better than last year. That being said, I feel that he prepared by reading arbitration cases, which is great, but doesn't gain experience in the "trenches" by resolving disputes, commenting on noticeboards, etc. [Insert standard comment about non-admin candidates that is repeated elsewhere on this guide]

Oppose
Ks0stm (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. OS, current arb clerk. A bit of activity concerns.
Questions
  • "However, when I am collaborating and consensus building one thing in particular that I make it a point to keep an open mind about others' opinions and ideas, even if I don't agree with them."
  • "Subject experts need to be willing to cooperate with and/or learn Wikipedia standards, and general editors need to be willing to be patient with subject experts while they manage the somewhat steep learning curve of Wikipedia policies and guidelines."
Editing record
  • Has a few GAs.
  • Ran for ArbCom in 2012 (got around 30%), and in 2013 (got around 50%).
  • Was mostly inactive March through August this year, including as an oversighter.
  • That being said, when he is active he is active, as the last 500 edits go back to September.
  • I took a brief look through the OS log, and don't see anything of concern, though I don't see any "tough call" actions either.
  • I've had good experiences working with Ks0stm out at the roads project, and when I was an arb clerk.
Overall impression

Well, having read through his answers to the questions this year, his candidacy is better than it was last year. However, his activity has not been so good. I feel that he would give the Committee his best efforts, but then that's working from my conversations with the candidate. However, I fear that he probably won't make it again since the voters will think his candidacy is too bland though, and because of the activity... but I trust him, at least, pushing me over to a weak support.

Weak support
PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Former arb from the early 2010s.
Questions
Editing record
Overall impression

Well, he hasn't answered the questions (or really edited since he posted his candidacy). That being said, he's generally been active (and I somehow missed that he's been taking care of lots of CU/OS backlogs) and we know how he would perform as an arb since he was one, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I'll try and look at the questions if he gets to them in time though.

Support
Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Current arb running for reelection.
Questions
  • "And, the most important thing, editors should accept that, sometimes, consensus is against them."
  • Answers to the other questions are okay, though nothing sticks out.
  • Hasn't answered the privacy question yet, but considering he's been a functionary I'm just going to go ahead with this one due to time.
Editing record
  • Current arbitrator (2013-2014), and except for a few months at the beginning of 2013, was active the whole time.
  • Served on AUSC for almost a year prior to that.
  • I spent several minutes looking through his votes in some of the "key" cases of 2013 and 2014, and for the most part, they seemed reasonable. A few votes mildly bothered me, but I couldn't pinpoint any "this really bothered me" ones.
Overall impression

Generally, all my interactions with Salvio have been positive. My impression of him as an arbitrator is someone who is willing to take the harder line when necessary, but does not pile-on with the majority, and who is willing to explain their reasoning. I suppose I'll probably disagree with his viewpoints at times should he be re-elected, but there's more to being a good arbitrator than "always agreeing with Rschen7754".

Strong support
Stanistani (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. I feel that his role in Wikipediocracy will make or break his candidacy, but we'll see how he handles it.
Questions
  • "From what I've read, a good deal of the tension arises from "subject matter experts" who see an inaccuracy in their field on Wikipedia, go to correct it, and get slammed for rules violations. This leads to anger and then a ban. "General editors" run the place, in one rank or another." Not exactly my point of view, but I can see where it comes from
  • A bit of advocacy, which isn't orthodox by any means, but well ArbCom doesn't make policy anyway so it's just what it is.
Editing record
  • Last 500 edits go back into 2011. The next 500 go back into 2009. The total is 1575.
  • Granted, he has ~710 mainspace edits out of that (estimating since toollabs isn't working for me today).
  • Well... there really isn't much else to say about that.
Overall impression

Well, let's be a bit blunt: this candidate understands the fundamental issues Wikipedia faces a lot more than some of the other candidates with a much higher edit count. I think he has the right motives, as well.

And I suppose I'll have to address the Wikipediocracy business now then. Back in the days when I read the site (nowadays it just raises my blood pressure, so I don't even bother), I found Zoloft to be fairly reasonable, and doing some digging around through the Wikimedia contributions I can find supports that. As far as the privacy business, I think it would probably be okay (one CU/OS holder on this site is heavily involved over there and somehow manages), but well, as the voter, that is something that you have to decide and come to terms with for yourself.

But for me, the deciding factor is the lack of edits and experience. Yes, I get that he comments about Wikipedia on another site, but that can't replace the experience of editing, writing quality articles, resolving disputes, etc. that one has to get by doing it themselves. Sure, it might make a difference if he had 8,000 or 10,000 contributions, but there's no way I can support with this few. So I have to go for Oppose for now, though I might be willing to reconsider with more experience. And there are worse candidates, I feel.

Oppose
Technical 13 (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

I have a bad feeling about this candidacy, but I'll keep my mouth shut until after the questions are answered.
Questions
  • The answers to the collaboration one and the case management one collide: it doesn't show an ability to resolve other people's disputes.
  • The "subject experts" one completely misses the mark.
Editing record
Overall impression

Disclosure: I've had several conversations with Technical 13. And I guess I'll start from there.

Most of my conversations stemmed from noticing an unusually high number of failed rights requests, and an unusual interest in rights, across Wikimedia, as noted above. I won't bore you with the various legalities of why the rights requests don't show how he is theoretically qualified for the rights, but there's an awful lot of them.

It is true that he has a good breadth of technical skills. However, I feel that he has difficulties interacting with other editors in contentious matters, and that he does not realize the importance of this ability and thinks that his technical ability overcomes all. Across Wikimedia, it is my firm belief that both collaboration skills and technical/writing ability are what are needed to be successful on Wikimedia, no matter what the role. I am sure that others will mention his block log and the signature stuff in their guides, so I won't bring that up here.

From reading his answers to Elonka's question, where he semi-spontaneously decided to run for ArbCom, I get the feeling that this is another one of these occurrences. I don't get the feeling that he knows what he is getting into, provided that he won, of course. Thus, I feel really bad about this, but I have to oppose rather strongly.

Strong Oppose
Thryduulf (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Admin. A bit outspoken on recent Wikimedia issues but I have to re-read the specifics.
Questions
  • "Mentoring is brilliant" Well, it is, but that and the rest of the answer misses the point of the "subject" vs. "general" question
  • See comments below.
Editing record
  • Besides being an admin here, is also one at en.wiktionary.
  • See also comments below.
Overall impression

Well, the candidate has good qualifications on paper, but my gut's telling me no. I'll disclose that I was in a dispute with him several years ago, and my impression then (as it is now) is that he was a bit difficult to work with; a compromise attempt was unsuccessful. That being said, I had forgotten about it until I did more research. The clincher for me though: I'm also a bit disturbed by their statements relating to Wikimedia Commons. While I agree that Commons has some problems, like other Wikimedia communities, comments like [5], "neutral notifications" like [6], and [7] really rub me the wrong way as a Wikimedia editor who just wants all the projects to get along. Heck, he even mentioned Commons in the answers to the desysopping question. I'd rather not have an arbitrator who says combative stuff about another Wikimedia project, and I wonder if there are other temperament concerns as well.

Oppose
Wbm1058 (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. Not an admin.
Questions
  • ""Subject experts" should consider the feedback they get from "general editors", and endeavor to make their contributions understandable to laymen, to the extent that is possible. ... This is a two-way street. "General editors" should assume good faith and recognize "subject experts" when they appear, and help them with the technical requirements. A little bit of cooperation can go a long way here."
  • "I would like to look at the processes used by other projects to see what the alternatives are and how well they are working elsewhere."
  • "I'm reminded of the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." While I don't dispute that principle, it's a bit out of place when running for a Committee and answering the "harassment" question, where outside people will definitely not follow that. Not sure they know what they are getting into.
Editing record
Overall impression

Well, his positions are okay, but I fear that they do not have enough experience for the role. They might have a good chance at running for admin with some work in the right areas (granted: this is not an endorsement, I didn't do that thorough of a check), though I can predict several opposes based on little content experience.

Oppose
Yunshui (talk · contribs)
Statement Questions Discussion

rights global contributions block log RFC

Awaiting answers to questions. (Trainee) SPI clerk, but fairly inactive there.
Questions
  • "My basic attitude is that we're all here to work together to build the encyclopedia, and we all go about it in our own ways. Mine is not necessarily the "right" way, and I try always to be mindful of that."
  • "The only time I see this division becoming a problem is when "general editors" consider themselves to be somehow superior to "subject experts" - we have a near-infinite supply of people who can recognise and revert vandalism, but only a handful who can accurately describe Megaponera. The role of the "general editors" then, is to support and assist those with more specialist knowledge, and help them to understand how Wikipedia works so that they can get fully involved."
  • The rest of the questions are generally well-answered.
Editing record
  • Well, as said in the candidate statement, he has a FA. Looking at the FAC, it looks like a clear pass, not controversial.
  • ACC activity and SPI activity are a bit underwhelming.
  • On the other hand, his OTRS work is better.
Overall impression

I'm leaning support with this one. So far, it seems like he has the right attitude going into this, and a good breadth of experience with both content creation and administrative-type work. My hesitation is in seeing his low ACC and SPI activity; how will 2 years of being an arb affect his activity levels? I'll probably wait until the entire candidate field is present before going one way or another, but so far in a weak field, this looks like one of the more promising candidates. Going to go with weak support for now, but might be adjusted depending on the others.

Weak support