User:William M. Connolley/ACE2011

Criteria

• personal experience: I'll be judging people by how they behaved in cases I've been in.
• availability: Iridescent may have been a nice chap but he failed in his duty to be there; he is hardly alone in this.
• clue: arbcomm is broken, badly. Anyone who thinks all is well, or needs minor tweaks, is a No.
• limits: arbcomm is an arbitration committee suffering badly from feature creep.
• old guard: too many timeservers; sitting arbs will need to have been good.

Stuff I'd like to see in people' statements

• I'd like arbcomm to think more about content and less about conduct.
• Arbcomm is lazy. To force them to be less so, and for the good of cases, only behaviour predating the opening of a case should be considered.

Generally I tend to like NW's views (User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011), except on BLP where he is badly wrong; read WP:BLPZEALOT instead.

User:Monty845/ACE2011 is worth a look.

My votes

User	Statement & Questions	Rights	Edits	Since	Preliminary notes	Opinion
AGK  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS	30,521	2006-02-27	Poor clerk during WP:ARBCC etc.	Oppose
Coren  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,Arb	16,556	2003-05-27	Poor in WP:ARBCC and didn't really recover in the appeal. Not worth giving another chance.	Oppose
Courcelles  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS	206,036	2006-09-17	Statement is vacuous, answers uninteresting, but what finally stopped me was that he has no ideas at all for improving the committee (see "broken", above).	Oppose
DeltaQuad  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	ex-A,OTRS	15,984	2007-11-07	Weak No. I don't know him, his answers are poor and verging on breaking several of my desires.	Oppose
Eluchil404  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	10,768	2006-03-02	Appears to have some clue, and is new. Venturing support.	Support
Geni  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS	27,643	2004-03-30	Was vaguely inclined to support before reading statement and answers. But anyone with no ideas for change just isn't thinking.	Oppose
Hersfold  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,ex-Arb	33,277	2006-12-21	Lightweight; fails "availability" criterion. Was rubbish clerk for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley	Oppose
Hot_Stop  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	None	831	2011-04-11	Joke	Strong Oppose
Jclemens  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb,	32,210	2006-08-24	Would have been a no, based on ARBCC and . But (a followup) is crap See-also Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Jclemens/Questions#Questions from Skinwalker	Strong Oppose
Kirill_Lokshin  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,Arb	70,451	2005-06-08	Was crap in WP:ARBCC	Oppose
Kww  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	55,932	2007-01-09	Statement is the best I've seen, some of the contributions look good too. Ideas for improvement are disappointing, and I've still got this nagging feeling I remember him from somewhere. I feel obliged to give someone strong support, and he just pips ST.	Strong support
Panyd  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS	9,044	2007-10-13	No, with regret. User:Panyd/Mental Health is tolerable in an admin, but breaks the "availability" condition. The BD RFC isn't good . No proposals for change.	Oppose
NWA.Rep  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	None	4,289	2006-02-12	Joke	Strong Oppose
SilkTork  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	51,864	2006-01-12	New, which is good. Statement better than most, answers sane if not really what I'd like. [Update, post election. I ended up seeing . The oppose is fine; the "not a serious candidate isn't". Would not have supported had I noticed before.]	Support
Risker  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb	18,805	2005-12-27	One of the authors of the risible initial PD in ARBCC ; need I say more?	Strong Oppose
Roger_Davies  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,Arb	29,341	2005-09-17	Poor in WP:ARBCC and didn't really recover in the appeal. Not worth giving another chance.	Oppose
Worm_That_Turned  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS	8,905	2008-07-13	Much like ST: appears sane. The KW RFC is a point in his favour.	Support

Notes

• Positions
  • Arb=Current Arbitrator
  • ex-Arb=Former Arbitrator
  • OTRS=Have access to OTRS for purposes other than checkuser or oversight
• Admin-level-or-higher rights
  • A=Administrator
  • B=Bureaucrat
  • CU=Checkuser (requires identification to WMF)
  • OS=Oversighter (requires identification to WMF)
  • S=Steward (requires identification to WMF, no other non en:wp rights will be shown)
• "None" refers to no admin-level-or-high rights

See also

• User:William M. Connolley/ACE2010
• User:William M. Connolley/ACE2012