User:Elonka/ACE2016

Disclaimer: ''This page expresses my personal opinions and observations only. I encourage all voters to do their own research on the candidates.''

Overview
For those who aren't sure what this is about: The Arbitration Committee is part of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. In fact, ArbCom is pretty much the last stop. For a general real world analogy, ArbCom is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. The arbitrators don't make decisions on article content, but they do issue rulings on complex disputes relating to user conduct, and they have considerable authority within the wiki-culture. Members of the committee are usually elected for two-year terms (sometimes one or three), with a new batch elected each year.

In September/October 2016, an RfC took place concerning the format of the 2016 elections, at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016.

Candidates self-nominated from November 6 to November 15, and the voting period will run from November 21 to December 4. Results will usually be posted about a week after that. For details on voting eligibility, see the 2016 election page.

For this 2016/2017 cycle, eight of the 15 arbitrators will remain on the committee from previous elections, with openings for seven new arbitrators to be elected to 2-year terms.

This page that you are reading, contains my (Elonka's) thoughts on the 2016 crop of ArbCom candidates. My general standards for a candidate are: admin access, integrity, experience with article-writing, time-available for the project, and hands-on knowledge of the dispute resolution processes. I am also a strong supporter of civility, as I believe that rude behavior on the project can drive away other editors, and I would hope that ArbCom would help support that view; however, I also understand that not everyone has the same feelings about civility, so I am willing to support arbitrator candidates for other reasons than just that one.

To see my thoughts on previous elections, check the history of:
 * User:Elonka/ACE2008
 * User:Elonka/ACE2009
 * User:Elonka/ACE2010
 * User:Elonka/ACE2011
 * User:Elonka/ACE2012
 * User:Elonka/ACE2013
 * User:Elonka/ACE2014
 * User:Elonka/ACE2015

Candidates

 * ''Candidates self-nominated from November 6–17, 2015. Voting will take place from November 21 – December 4.


 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * Oppose. Not an admin.
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * ✅ Support. Current arbitrator, running for re-election
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * ✅ Support. Current arbitrator, running for re-election
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * ✅ Support. Current arbitrator, running for re-election
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * ✅. Previous arbitrator, but then resigned shortly into their term. Did it in a responsible manner though, so I am willing to support them again.
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * ✅ Support. Administrator, oversight, arbitration clerk, solid content creation. This is his third run at ArbCom
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * ✅ Support. Admin, Checkuser, Oversight. Trusted member of the community. Previous arbitrator, though he also failed in a past re-election bid.
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * Weak oppose. Administrator, OTRS. Does a ton of work at AfD, but I'm not seeing much participation in Arbitration. I would prefer to see a candidate that has more experience with cases, such as by offering a statement every so often. I am also concerned that Mkdw does not appear to have much work in content creation. They were involved with one FA at Vancouver about 10 years ago, but I couldn't see any FA work since then.
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * ✅ Support. Previous arbitrator with several years of experience. He knows what he's in for.
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * ✅ Support. Admin, has done a lot of good work around the project. Relatively active, and plenty of experience with dispute resolution. More info at this bureaucrat discussion about their (successful) RfA in 2013: Requests for adminship/Salvidrim!/Bureaucrat discussion.
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * Oppose. Administrator, but not sure he's serious about his candidacy. His entire statement was, "Eh, why not?". Was a bureaucrat in the past, but then resigned from that post. I'd rather have someone with more commitment.
 * 1)  • statement • questions
 * Oppose. Administrator, but not sure he's serious about his candidacy. His entire statement was, "Eh, why not?". Was a bureaucrat in the past, but then resigned from that post. I'd rather have someone with more commitment.