v t e 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Give your feedback Candidates Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Voter guides These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion. Badger Drink Rschen7754 Ealdgyth SandyGeorgia Kiefer.Wolfowitz RegentsPark Sven Manguard HJ Mitchell Joe Gazz84 NuclearWarfare Master&Expert Heimstern Elonka Monty845 Carcharoth Guerillero William M. Connolley Wizardman

I will write questions, I will ask questions, and I will read your responses to the general questions and questions asked by others. I will ask abstract questions, ones requiring you do some thinking, not just "yes or no" style questions. As an arbitrator, you need to be open-minded and ready to "investigate" without a lot of detail. I want you to think, I don't want to give you a lot of detail, because a lot of the time arbitrators don't have a lot of information and need to think abstractly to figure things out and interpret what they're given. I don't feel it is necessary to "interrogate" candidates by asking a lot of questions, so the most questions you'll see from me is 5. I feel that I can tell whether or not a candidate is capable of handling the responsibility of sitting on ArbCom by the way they answer their questions.

There are certain questions I will give weight to though, and those are these:

• Questions 1-5 from the questions I wrote,
• Question 6: Private Information
• Question 7: Division of Responsibilities
• Question 10: Proposals for Change

Please remember though, these questions will not be the only things that go into my decision, I will also check the following:

• History of Dispute Resolution Skills.
• Involvement in past disputes,
• Previous blocking history,
• Past involvement with ArbCom,
• Other voters guide's to see what they believe to be important to point out or base a decision on.

I will, in addition to the above, factor personal interactions into this vote. If I have had repeated poor interaction with a candidate, that will discount their chances in getting my vote greatly. If I have had positive interactions on a regular basis, that will help the candidate to gain my vote.

I do not believe that ArbCom members are something special, they fill a stressful, tiring, and otherwise painful role. They are generally not liked, and to be honest, I don't like them either, but they are a necessary part of our community. I believe that ArbCom members are not to be trusted and they they are sneaky and slimy. I don't trust ArbCom members, but we need them, and with that said, these candidates will need to impress me greatly for me to vote for them, seeing as I don't trust the committee.

I'd finally like to point out that I will not judge any current arbitrator on the case regarding Sophie. That case was of the utmost sensitivity and it was extremely controversial. This is not to say that I won't point out your interactions on that case, it is just to say that I will not factor that case into voting. My involvement (although not named) with that case was deep, and there were several "misunderstandings" and "conflicts of interest" with that case, so I will avoid another COI and leave that case out of my judgement with current arbitrators.

The following opinions are solely mine and mine along and do not reflect any influence of any other editor or party. I will vote how I feel, not how you want me to vote. I strongly encourage you to read several guides and vote how your heart and mind tell you to vote, not the way this guide tells you to vote unless it is what your heart and mind tell you to do.

 JoeGazz   ♂ 

Last Update: 21:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What My Votes Mean

• Strong Support — the user is a necessity for the committee to have and it would be bad for that user not to be a part of the committee.
• Support — the user is a good candidate for the committee to have and would be beneficial for the committee to have.
• Abstain/Undecided — the user is not good nor bad for the committee, they could improve, but they could also be worse.
• Oppose — the user is not a good choice for the committee, they could be a potential problem from past experience and from answers to their questions.
• Strong Oppose — the user would cause the committee to fail, they would cause a "block" in the committee and cause more problems than would be solved.

Summary Table

Strong Support	Support	Likely Support	No Vote	Likely Oppose	Oppose	Strong Oppose
Panyd Hersfold	Risker Worm That Turned Roger Davies	AGK	DeltaQuad	None	Kww	Hot Stop NWA.Rep Geni Coren

Candidates

Adapted from NuclearWarfare

Note: All "Likely Oppose" or "Likely Support" votes will be removed by the end of the election and replaced with the actual oppose/support vote that the candidate received. Those votes are normally used in cases where the candidate hasn't finished answering questions or has been asked for clarification.

User	Statement & Questions	Rights [1]	Edits [2]	Since	Preliminary notes	Opinion [3]
AGK  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS	30,521	2006-02-27	Candidate seems to have support at large from the community and based on the general question answers, I see no reason for this candidate to pose an issue in the future.	Support
Coren  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,Arb	16,556	2003-05-27	Not going to mince words here... Absolutely Not. This candidate has WAY to big of hopes and has it all wrong. We don't need a second ArbCom to create policy, we need the community's voice. You'd be an extreme disappointment to me if you were elected.	Strong Oppose
Courcelles  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS	206,036	2006-09-17	I've seen nothing but excellent work from Courcelles and I believe I will continue to. The answers to questions were through and very helpful and made my decision easy with this candidate. There are no outstanding concerns I have with this user.	Support
DeltaQuad  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	ex-A,OTRS	15,984	2007-11-07	Per personal interaction and a conflict of interest, I will not be casting a vote for this candidate. I neither support or oppose this candidate, but I also am not abstain. I will not reveal what I feel about this candidate and let it be known that this no-vote is purely because of a COI.	No Vote To Be Cast
Eluchil404  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	10,768	2006-03-02		Abstain
Geni  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	26,257	2004-03-30	I'm shocked... This candidate is probably the worst abstract thinker in the world. Not certain in their answers and doesn't even remotely answer my questions. Sorry, but this candidate would kill ArbCom.	Strong Oppose
Hersfold  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,ex-Arb	33,277	2006-12-21	I've worked with Hersfold and he's very capable. He's active at WP:ACC and that is also a stressful (but not nearly of that level as this) environment. This user has done well in heated debate and discussion and would be a benefit to the committee. I see real potential beyond what he's already exibited and would be pleased to see him serve on the committee.	Strong support
Hot_Stop  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	None	931	2011-04-11	This candidate appears to be extremely inexperienced and has little to none with dispute resolution. The block log for this user, showing a block for personal attacks, is depressing and makes me that much more concerned for this user to be on the committee.This user would cause harm to the committee, therefore I suggest withdrawing for this candidate.	Should Withdraw
Jclemens  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb,	32,210	2006-08-24		Abstain
Kirill_Lokshin  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,Arb	70,451	2005-06-08	Weak support for this candidate only because they weren't able to describe how they know when they've hit their limits. Yes, I understand you've dealt with cases for five years, but you still have to know your limits. Something may be a COI or related and you have to know when to recuse yourself from a case. Other than that issue, I see no outstanding issues with this candidate.	Support
Kww  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	55,315	2007-01-09	Candidate appears not to be a "deep thinker" as I call them. Simple "yes/no" answers to questions that ask "Why?" seem to puzzle me when it comes to attention to what the question is asking. My concern is why #2 and #4 of my personal questions. Knowing limits for this user is one thing, but knowing what they are, and giving the community an idea of how you know them and what they are is another. I question this user's judgement and ability to make wise decisions based on answers.	Oppose
Panyd  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS	9,044	2007-10-13	This candidate impresses me, a lot. Panyd knows when to stop, when to get involved, and when to do something. The ability to not take things personally, no matter the accusation, is admirable, it means that emotion won't come into play as an arbitrator, and that's a good thing. It also appears that this candidate feels the community should have control, and ArbCom should simply execute the policy and desires of the community, no more, no less. I believe that the candidate believes personal/private information is just that, personal and private and should not be shared or provided to anyone for any reason outside of the committee.	Strong support
NWA.Rep  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	None	4,289	2006-02-12	To me, your block log doesn't impress, at all. I'm not sure I can trust someone like you with consistent issues with disruption. Arbitrators are supposed to be cool-headed and it appears to me that you're not. You cause lots of disruption and, unfortunately, that's not what I look for in an arbitrator. Another concern is that you don't appear to be very confident when asked "abstract" questions, which all of mine were. As an arbitrator, you need to be able to investigate and think with little to no detail, and your responses to my abstract questions just showed you're not confident when you're not given solid evidence. ArbCom investigates based on little fact to uncover the whole story, you're not good at abstract thinking and don't seem confident. Update: This candidate to me now seems like a joke. Per response to my additional question, this candidate claims rouge admin abuse, which is completely out there and just flat out not true. The blocks to this candidate concern me and they all seem to be legit after reviewing them. I begin to question this user's ability to make cool-headed decisions and/or investigate things with people they don't particularly care for.	Strong Oppose
SilkTork  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	51,864	2006-01-12		Abstain
Risker  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb	18,805	2005-12-27	This user was involved with User:Sophie, while I personally wish she'd have been more helpful to me when I was involved, she did a wonderful job keeping information secret and private for only the involved user (Sophie) to know, and even then, only a small portion of that information was released to the user to prevent any form of "tipping the user off" as to what they were on to. I believe Risker has potential and has the ability to serve well on ArbCom in the future.	Support
Roger_Davies  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,Arb	29,341	2005-09-17	Candidate's answers to questions were good, but not exemplary. I've reviewed this candidate's ArbCom history and nothing concerns me to the extent where I feel this user should be removed from the committee. I have faith in Roger.	Support
Worm_That_Turned  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS	8,905	2008-07-13	There's not much to say here, I'm just impressed with the way my questions were answered. I appreciate this candidate's view and appreciation for transparency that the committee needs to hold to. This candidate seems willing, ready, and excited to get to work for ArbCom and the community, which in my opinion, can be very hard to do.	Support

Voting Comparison Chart