User:Reaper Eternal/ACE2019

My thoughts on the 2019 arbitration committee election (candidate list).

What do I look for?

I do not want editors who cause drama. The level of dramatics at ArbCom cases tends towards the absurd, so we do not need an arbitrator fanning the flames. I look for cases of dispute resolution, especially where the disputes were successfully resolved. While I'm no civility cop, I do consider incivility and profanity to be generally unhelpful in the dispute resolution process. While a regular editor or admin can get away with occasionally blowing up and venting, an arbitrator needs to be a shining example of calmness, since arbitrators will have to deal with many angry and upset editors on a regular basis.

I also look for article content creation. Content creation indicates that the aspiring arbitrator understands Wikipedia's policies, and he or she will know what articles mean to the writers. Content creators on ArbCom will have sympathy towards productive editors being baited and less likely, in my opinion, to simply slap symptoms without treating the cause.

How many people should I support?

I personally will only support up to as many people as there are seats available (11 for this election) to maximize the chances of my preferred candidates getting elected. Other people who I would have supported get ruled down to neutral.

Key evidence

Interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.

Support

AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, SilkTork, Worm That Turned

Recused

Joe Roe

Inactive

Callanecc

For the Arbitration Committee, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A terrible decision that was horribly executed.

Candidate summary

A table for easy reference! This table is sorted alphabetically and not in any order of preference.

Candidate	Years of experience	Thoughts	Verdict
Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	Barkeep49 is a fresh admin, though he has been around the block as an editor. Like Gadfium, I have nothing negative to say about him. Has WP:CLUE.	Support
Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	2	Sane and experienced. Willing to call a spade a spade when needed. However, he can be abrasive, which is undesirable for arbitrators. However, this is needlessly inflammatory, an astonishing display of poor taste, and exactly not what I want to see coming from an arbitrator or arbitrator-hopeful. Arbitrators should generate more light than heat, and that comment does nothing but stir drama.	Oppose
Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	While clerking at ArbCom does give you technical experience in how arbitration on Wikipedia works, I don't think he has enough experience in other important areas (i.e. article writing). With the other candidates running, I'm going to have to go neutral on this one.	Neutral
Calidum (talk · contribs) (nom)	0	As in past campaigns, no.	Strong oppose
Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	6	Yes. Casliber has done exemplary article work and was an excellent arb in his previous terms.	Strong support
David Fuchs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	4	David was one of the better arbitrators in the past, and, perhaps most importantly, understands the purpose of Wikipedia: to build an encyclopedia. David's excellent content work also helps.	Support
DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	3	Ruled to neutral because I already have 11 supports. I don't recall being impressed by his term on the committee either.	Neutral
Enterprisey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	I just don't see any experience in important areas.	Neutral
Gadfium (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	Gadfium is definitely one of the more sane editors, and we need some fresh blood on the community. I have nothing negative to say about him.	Support
Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	As before. Hawkeye7 is an incredible editor with a ton of talent, but he's incompatible with ArbCom. He was also desysopped for cause.	Oppose
Isarra (talk · contribs) (nom)	0	Just no.	Strong oppose
KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	2	Unimpressed by her tenure on the committee and by her nomination statement. I don't care what gender (male, female, or non-binary) the arbitrators are—my support is purely based on the candidate's past actions and statements of intent. (See above for what I look for in candidates.)	Oppose
Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0		Oppose
Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	Laser brain has been one of the main coordinators for the featured article process for as long as I can remember, something that makes him one of the more qualified candidates running. Laser brain has withdrawn. :(	Support
Llywrch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	Ruled down to neutral solely because I have 11 supports.	Neutral
Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	2	While I am a little hesitant to elect two crats to ArbCom, Maxim is and has been an excellent editor.	Strong support
Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	I lost count	[Insert flattery here]	Strong support
Richwales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	Richwales is currently an oversighter. However, his activity is minimal. While an admin who is occasionally active isn't an issue ("many hands make light work"), there are a fixed number of ArbCom seats. I'd prefer a candidate who will be active in their term.	Oppose
SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	Ruled down to neutral solely because I have 11 supports already. Would otherwise be weak support. Laser brain has withdrawn, so SoWhy now gets my support.	Weak support
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	0	Running while under sanctions is difficult, but I believe TRM has genuinely turned over a new leaf. As the actions of recent committees have shown, we need more article contributors and less "group-thinkers" on ArbCom. As such, I will support TRM's candidacy.	Support
Thryduulf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	1	See 28bytes' oppose.	Weak oppose
Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	4	Dave has four years of experience resolving disputes on ArbCom. In the past, I've mentioned his strong dispute resolution capabilities, his clue, and his highly civil demeanor, and I believe he still possesses those traits. Dave also was one of the arbitrators willing to stand up to the WMF in the Fram drama. On the negative side, he's currently part of the lame-duck ArbCom, though that may be no fault of his own. Additionally, he supported the poorly-thought-out and horribly-communicated Praxidicae/Ritchie333 decision that has basically left Ritchie unable to participate in many admin areas. Praxidicae has a tendency to be a deletionist and prefers to nuke spammy articles, whereas Ritchie is an inclusionist who prefers to improve (rewrite) them. Neither position is wrong, but such users will invariably butt heads. Overall, I will likely still support due to his history of good decisions, but I'm flabbergasted that he let the Praxidicae/Ritchie333 decision through and supported it.	Support
Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (nom)	2	Yes, please! Xeno is one of the most level-headed editors I know of. He has experience as an arbitrator, remains tactful at all times (more than I can say for myself), and cares for the community.	Strong support