User:Biblioworm/ACE 2016
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
On this page are my opinions on the 2016 candidates for the Arbitration Committee.
In summary
[edit]- I am supporting three of the eleven candidates: Euryalus, Mkdw, and Salvidrim!.
- I am weakly (or very weakly) supporting two of the eleven candidates: Calidum and Writ Keeper.
- I am opposing three of the eleven candidates: DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, and LFaraone.
- I am weakly (or very weakly) opposing three of the eleven candidates: DGG, Ks0stm, and Newyorkbrad.
My votes this year are mostly based on whether I think the candidate will be a reliable supporter of change if elected to the committee. Since there has been virtually no improvement in ArbCom in recent times, I have a very high bar for supporting current or former arbitrators for a new term, and in my view, only one candidate of that group (Euryalus) satisfies my standards. I am opposing the rest of the candidates from that group.
Keep in mind that I have nothing personal against the candidates that I oppose. I simply wish to save my supports for candidates that will, in my opinion, bring fresh blood to the committee and reliably support changing and reforming the arbitration process. If a candidate which I oppose gets elected to the committee, I will of course be happy to work with them if they ultimately express openness to improving any part of the arbitration process.
Candidates
[edit]Calidum
[edit]
Weak support:
His answers were good, for the most part, and I really think we need a non-admin on the committee. Non-admins are far more likely to be outside the establishment and support real change. I do understand that there are concerns over temperament, but I think the benefits of having an "outsider" outweigh any tendencies to be somewhat blunt at times. It would only be one seat, after all; a single upset arbitrator cannot inflict much permanent damage.
DeltaQuad
[edit]
Oppose:
It seems to me that DeltaQuad's ArbCom term has been average at best. DQ's activity fell during their time on the committee, and I do not see any evidence of especially significant improvements during their term (the same goes for most of the incumbent arbs). ArbCom has become notoriously slow and bureaucratic, and I really think it's time to replace the committee with mostly pro-change fresh-blood candidates. I'm uncomfortable about reelecting too many arbs from the previous times of failed bureaucratic systems, and therefore I'm afraid that I cannot comfortably support a second term.
DGG
[edit]
Weak oppose:
Per my views on incumbents arb, as expressed in DQ's section. I was considering supporting DGG, but upon further consideration I fail to find any evidence of significant improvement during their time on the committee, nor do I find any evidence of their actively supporting any such change while on the committee. Their answer to my question was about 50/50, and in the presence of other concerns, a 50/50 answer does little to change my opinion.
Doug Weller
[edit] Oppose:
Per my comments on DeltaQuad. His response to my question did express support for a couple of reforms, but he seems to oppose streamlining and wishes to retain the status quo (which, in my view, has led to a horribly bloated and inefficient bureaucracy). Therefore, I cannot support a second term.
Euryalus
[edit] Support:
As of yet, I don't see anything to object to. He is well-rounded, civil, and level-headed. Very importantly, he understands that arbitrator is not a lifetime position. Even before I asked my question, he made clear in his statement that he considers change to be a top priority on the committee, and his proposals are generally in line with mine. For the most part, I was quite satisfied with his response to my proposals, so I will support his candidacy. This will be my one support for a candidate that has previously served on the committee.
Ks0stm
[edit] Weak oppose:
This is Ks0stm's third run for the committee, which makes me concerned as to whether he wants to position just for the sake of having it. I tend not to vote for people who I suspect may make being an arbitrator a Wikipedia career of sorts. His response to my question was about 50/50. I have nothing at all against him personally, but the aforementioned concerns prevent me from being able to genuinely support this candidacy. I would also prefer to use my votes to give more leverage to the candidates I do support. As such, my decision in this case is a weak oppose.
LFaraone
[edit] Oppose:
Per DQ's section. LFaraone seems like a friendly person, but I have made a policy of not voting for those who have a mostly average term without any evidence of their bringing unique benefits or viewpoints to the committee. In addition, LFaraone's statement does not indicate that they would do anything especially differently this time around. I would note that his reelection bid in 2015 was unsuccessful, and his immediate attempt to get back on the committee makes me a bit uncomfortable, so I'll probably end up opposing. Their answer to my question in incomplete as of now.
Mkdw
[edit] Support:
My personal interactions with Mkdw have, as far as I can recall, always been positive, so I have no personal complaints. He seems to be a reasonable, good-natured person who civilly responds to inquiries concerning his actions. On the other hand, I'm cautious, because I want to ensure that I'm not voting for someone who will, as usual, turn into a go-with-the-flow "career arbitrator." However, his answer to my question did indicate that he was open to implementing, in some form or way, a good deal of the proposed changes. In summary, I think he would be a civil, level-headed, and cooperative arbitrator, so I will support his candidacy.
Newyorkbrad
[edit]✗ Very weak oppose:
I know many people may find this decision quite shocking. Let me clear: I have nothing at all against NYB personally, and there is no doubt that he would bring a wealth of experience to committee if elected for another term. Based on my interactions, he is also a logical, level-headed person, and that I something I very much value. But he has already served over half a dozen years on the committee (2007-2014, if I recall), and in my view that is probably more than enough time on the committee for any one person.
In addition, his answer to my question did not express clear support for any of the proposed reforms except AE time delays, and that concerns me. My entire purpose in this election is voting for candidates who will be supporters of change, and based on the factors I have discussed, I feel that my purpose would be best served by saving my supports for candidates that more clearly support reform. Therefore, my decision is a very weak oppose.
Salvidrim!
[edit] Support:
His account was compromised last year, although he fixed the problem and I imagine he has learned his lesson. He does have a tendency to be ... blunt, at times, but the vast majority of the time it seems that he is quite civil and cooperative. I'm generally quite satisfied with his answer to my question, so all other concerns aside, I think he'll be fairly reliable vote for change, and for that reason alone I will support.
Writ Keeper
[edit]✓ Very weak support:
I am concerned about their previous resignation as bureaucrat and administrator—it does raise questions as to whether he can take the stress that ArbCom entails. However, I definitely know first-hand that we need breaks (often long ones) from all the nonsensical drama, so that alone is not enough to make me oppose. It appears that he might bring some much-needed levity to the committee; the Arbitration Committee is often taken much too seriously. He expressed expressed sympathy for most of the reforms mentioned in my question, although his support for some of the ideas appeared quite weak and some parts of the answer with rather vague. But all in all, it seems to me that the positives narrowly outweigh the doubtful aspects, so I have decided to very tentatively support his candidacy.
Predictions
[edit]These are my predictions as to who will attain election or reelection in this year's elections. In making these predictions, I have used historical considerations, voter guide aggregates, and educated guesses.
- Newyorkbrad: Virtually guaranteed. Will probably finish with the highest vote share. I would not be surprised if he received 80%+ of the vote.
- Euryalus: Virtually guaranteed. Will probably finish with the second-highest vote share, likely in the mid to high 70% range.
- Salvidrim!: Very likely. Will probably finish in the mid to high 60% range, although a finish in the very low 70% range could not be completely ruled out.
- Ks0stm: Likely. Will probably finish in the mid to high 60% range.
- Mkdw: Likely. Will probably finish in the low to mid 60% range, although a finish in the high 50% range cannot be ruled out.
- DeltaQuad: More likely than not. Will probably finish in the high 50% to very low 60% range.
- Doug Weller: Might win reelection very narrowly. I would expect a vote percentage in the low to mid 50% range.
- Writ Keeper: Toss-up. Will probably finish in the high 40% to very low 50% range.
- DGG: Probably not. Will likely finish in the mid to high 40% range, although a finish in the low 50% range is not out of the question.
- LFaraone. Very unlikely. Will probably finish in the low to mid 40% range.
- Calidum: Very unlikely. Will probably finish with the lowest vote share, probably between 20–30%.
So, we'll see how things turn out.