User:Epiphyllumlover/ACE 2021

This is a voters' guide about a single question pertaining to paid editing enforcement and a training program geared towards those paid to leave comments and votes, but lack wiki-syntax skills:

Affirmative:


 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Worm_That_Turned/Questions, though concerned about potential corruption of the enforcement process


 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Wugapodes/Questions, but outside ArbCom's scope, invited me to continue the discussion, which I did at User_talk:Wugapodes

Negative:
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Donald_Albury/Questions on the basis of ArbCom purview, and potential corruption of the enforcement process


 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Cabayi/Questions, potential corruption of the enforcement process


 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Izno/Questions, outside ArbCom's scope, waste of donor cash


 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Opabinia_regalis/Questions, outside ArbCom's scope, unlikely to be successful or supported, needs evidence pertaining to the extent of the problem


 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions, Uncertain about the extent of the problem, not a huge supporter of paying


 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions, suggested that evidence be presented, noted that bounty program seems too easy to game

Neither:
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Banedon/Questions

Hard for me to make a judgement concerning sentiment:
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Thryduulf/Questions, contributed interesting thoughts about the proposal; why it would be a mistake to tie enforcement and training together

Both affirmative and negative to the proposal:
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Candidates/Enterprisey/Questions, enthusiastically supports efforts related to training editors from backgrounds in other languages, but sees a program for employers into Arbcom as ineffective towards accomplishing its goals. Instead would rather see closers spend more time to do a better job, this would help prevent vote-buying.

Thank you for thoughts and answers.