User:Atsme/ACE2019

Following are my suggestions for the candidates running in the 2019 arbitration committee election per the (candidate list). There are 11 vacant seats - 8 for either a 2-year term (01-01-2020 – 12-31-2021) or 1-year term (01-01-2020 – 12-31-2020), and 3 for a 1-year term.

• Note: - you can go back and change your vote right up until they close the voting.

Top five features to look for in a candidate

1. Do they have the time to devote? In my view, this is #1 among the top 5 most important features to look for in a candidate. An arb who is pressed for time will either go inactive/ask to be excused, rush through a case or simply go along with the flow. With the latter in mind, I want arbs who have a mind of their own, are able to separate themselves from groupthink and will leave their biases at login. I definitely do not want an arb who doesn't have time to answer my questions, or carefully review a case in context. Far too often (once is too often in my book) the opposition files a case against an editor based on their own biases, knowing they have support from like-minded admins/arbs, which tends to lead to gaming the system. If an arb doesn't take the time to read the diffs in context, they are doing a disservice to the accused as well as to the project, and that is why having the time to devote is of the utmost importance.
2. Do they have a history of being polite and considerate? Common sense tells us it is important to avoid anyone who is foul-mouthed, condescending, opinionated, inconsiderate, lacks empathy, or considers WP a game to occupy their time.
3. Have they demonstrated critical thinking skills and good ole common sense? - an arb who lacks common sense has not demonstrated the ability to think through a complex situation or who lacks basic sentence comprehension skills should not be an arb, much less an admin. I think time to devote may also play a role in this, as well.
4. Does the candidate have any FAs, GAs or DYKs to their credit? I think it's important for an arb to have some investment in building the encyclopedia. It's the only way they can truly understand how much time and effort goes into creating/editing a neutrally balanced, well-sourced encyclopedic article with engaging prose. It is far more difficult to write for the opposition than it is to present one's own POV. It also provides more insight into the ins and outs of edit warring, POV pushing, coatracks/attack pages, POV forks, etc.; all of which are much easier to create/edit because they simply reflect an editor's or group of editors' POV and biases. The same applies to COI editing.
5. Has the candidate demonstrated bias or favoritism? - arbs must be neutral. Have they dismissed the bad actions of a colleague or supported action against an editor because they disagree with a particular POV? Look at their past contributions, including noticeboards such as ANI, AN, RSN, BLPN, AfD NPP and/or AfC. How closely do they adhere to our core content policies, and how have they treated RECENTISM, NEWSORG, LABELS, etc. Have they closed any highly controversial RfCs, and if so, did they simply count votes or did they think it through based on the reasoning presented in individual iVotes?

Alphabetical candidate summary

Candidate	Experience	My thoughts	My position
Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	Barkeep passes my top 5 with flying colors! He is also our New Page Patrol coordinator. I think this diff is a good example of his approach and basic temperament.	Support
Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	Beeblebrox passes because of his experience, versatility, track record as an admin/CU/OS, and his common sense approach.	Support
Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	Former arbcom clerk; twice recognized as Editor of the Week. He also works in AfC and NPP.	Support
DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	Experienced arb - absolutely unbiased, level-headed, an independent thinker with common sense and critical thinking skills, AfC excellence, clearly an asset.	Support
Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	Xeno is almost over-qualified for the position. His track record speaks volumes and I believe he will be an excellent addition to ArbCom. 😊	Support
Enterprisey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	Technically savvy, AfC proficient, Editor of the Week recipient, article creator and a team player.	Support
Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	Currently serving on the committee - appears to be a solid, neutral admin.	Support
Gadfium (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	Common sense, a productive editor, obviously has the time to devote.	Support
Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	76 Featured Articles, 3 featured lists, 117 A class articles, and 290 Good Articles. I'm of the mind that former admins may have more insight.	Support
Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	Kudpung knows the ropes, gets things done, and invests the time.	Support
Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	Y	If he holds true to what he has pledged in self-nom, he will be an excellent arb.	Support
Richwales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)		Already maxed out with 11	Neutral
SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)		We can only choose 11 candidates.	Neutral
Thryduulf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)		I've already maxed out with 11.	Neutral
Llywrch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)		Next round, perhaps.	Neutral
Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)		My past experiences interacting with NYBrad last year tell me he simply does not have the time necessary to be an arb. It was quite difficult to get him to respond to my serious questions last year, and when I commented on my UTP about him not responding, I was reprimanded by a few other admins. I respect Newyorkbrad for the years he has invested in WP, and if I thought he had the time necessary, I would probably support his nom, but I'm not convinced. ArbCom is charged with making decisions that may have a negative impact on an editor's ability to enjoy their time on WP, and it should be taken very seriously, regardless of whether or not it's a voluntary indulgence. Adding that he did respond positively to my question, so I'm changing from Oppose to Neutral because I've already reached my 11 choice limit.	Neutral
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	N	Too many issues on-going.	Oppose
Calidum (talk · contribs) (nom)	N	While I don't rule out candidates for block logs over 3 years old, "abuse of advanced permissions" is a show stopper for me.	Oppose
Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	N	I find it rather disconcerting when an admin does not appear to understand that aspersions and PAs are disruptive	Oppose
David Fuchs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	N	A little too hard core; he supported a site ban when other, less draconian, remedies were available, but it may also have been an indication of preconceived notions, which I also find highly problematic.	Oppose
KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	N	Bit of a temper	Oppose
Isarra (talk · contribs) (nom)	N	I don't think so.	Oppose