I've decided to make another guide for this year's election, following much of the same criteria as my guide for the 2012 election.
Unlike others, I have no set criteria for my guide. I base my decisions primarily on a candidate's record. For incumbent and former arbitrators, I primarily look at their record in past cases. For others running, I look at their work elsewhere on Wikipedia. I generally don't look much into the questions posed of the candidates or their nomination statements, but I don't discount them entirely.
In this election, I believe that incumbents AGK and Roger Davies each deserve another term on the committee. In addition, I feel two candidates I backed last year who didn't win seats -- Beeblebrox and Guerillero -- should be elected this year. Finally, first time candidates 28bytes, Floquenbeam, GorillaWarfare, Kraxler, and NativeForeigner are all worthy of serving on the committee.
Lastly, I believe in strategic voting, meaning I intend to oppose all other candidates, to help support those I am backing.
For the record, all the candidates I backed except Guerillero and Kraxler were elected.
|28bytes (talk · contribs)||Support. 28bytes' work as a bureaucrat gives me confidence that he will excel as an arbitrator.|
|AGK (talk · contribs) [Incumbent]||Support. AGK has been an arbitrator since winning a seat in the 2011 election. In his first term as arbitrator, he has shown himself to be one the better members of ArbComm.|
|Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)||Tea Party case.Oppose. Currently under sanctions from the|
|Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)||Support. I supported him when he ran last year, and he's done nothing to change my mind about him this year. I consider him a straight-shooter, someone who isn't afraid to tell it like it is.|
|Bwilkins (talk · contribs)||evidence presented against him is a compelling reason to vote "no."Oppose. Bwilkins had a run in with the committee in August. While the case wasn't accepted, some the|
|David Gerard (talk · contribs) [Former Arb.]||Manning case. It's hard to read his nomination statement and not get the sense that he's running to reverse that, particularly when he writes that "I aim...to welcome reviews of past terrible decisions." In that same statement he also writes that the committee has abused it's powers, including oversight, to suppress criticisms. Such allegations, made without any evidence, are why he should not be on the committee.Oppose. David is currently under sanctions imposed by the committee in October for his role in the|
|Floquenbeam (talk · contribs)||Support. In my opinion having him on the committee will be a positive.|
|Gamaliel (talk · contribs)||Oppose. This is mostly strategic.|
|Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)||Oppose. GWH has been largely inactive since the beginning of 2012 (see edit breakdown).|
|GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs)||Support. I don't think I've seen anyone right anything negative about her, ever.|
|Guerillero (talk · contribs)||Ban Appeals Subcommittee.Support. I supported Guerillero last year, when he did not win a seat. Since then, he has gone on to serve as a clerk for the committee. I strongly support his call to place non-arbs on the|
|Isarra (talk · contribs)||Oppose. While I'm supportive of non-admins serving on the committee, she just doesn't have enough experience. (Ironic, I know, since she has much more than I did when I ran.)|
|Kraxler (talk · contribs)||Support. To call Kraxler a content creator might be an understatement, considering he's authored more than 1,300 articles. Having someone with that much content work under their belt on the committee is a plus, because we are here to write an encyclopedia, after all.|
|Ks0stm (talk · contribs)||Oppose. I have fewer concerns this year than when Ks0stm ran in 2012, but this time he got squeezed out by better candidates.|
|Kww (talk · contribs)||disappearance of Natalee Holloway seems to be problematic (see ANI for more). This is also his third year in a row running -- he actually finished with a lower percentage in 2012 than in 2011. To quote SandyGeorgia's guide from last year "this looks like 'keep trying, and eventually Wikipedia turnover will mean new voters won't remember why you were resoundingly rejected last year.'"Oppose. His involvement with the article on the|
|LFaraone (talk · contribs)||Oppose. This is mostly strategic.|
|NativeForeigner (talk · contribs)||military history Wikiproject gives him a nod.Support. Content work with the|
|RegentsPark (talk · contribs)||Darkness Shines (several other writers have pointed this out, particularly Heimstern and Rschen7754). Seeing that RP has unblocked him three times in 18 months, I'm concerned he'd be too lenient.Oppose. I opposed him strategically last year. This year, while I'm impressed with many of the answers he provided on the questions page, I'm opposing him again. Frankly, I'm somewhat concerned about his unblocks of|
|Richwales (talk · contribs)||Oppose. I opposed Richwales when he ran last year and finished 14th overall, and I am opposing him this time as well. Last year, he ran largely on a platform of civility enforcement, and is running under a similar platform this year. More concerning, however, is that Rich is in favor of expanding ArbComm's powers to let the committee make rulings on content disputes.|
|Roger Davies (talk · contribs) [Incumbent]||Support. Has good experience with the committee, which is important considering only one other incumbent is running. Nothing in his record suggests he shouldn't continue to serve.|
|Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)||Slp1's question related to our BLP policy provides a good enough reason to oppose.Oppose. I think his answer to|
|The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs)||block log is concerning to say the least.Oppose. TDA's|