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?