User:Patient Zero/ACE2017

Here are my opinions on the Arbitration Committee candidates running this year.

My views

 * Candidates must demonstrate, in my opinion, a degree of responsibility. The ideal way of demonstrating this would be through a successful request for adminship. As such, I am of the belief that only administrators should be able to serve on the Committee. I also believe that candidates must be in good standing, with no active sanctions or recent blocks, and must demonstrate an ability to deal with disputes effectively. Those that have previously served on the Committee, and those with CheckUser or Oversight privileges, will be given supporting votes from me as these also demonstrate responsibility. Without any further ado, this is how I will be voting this year:

Support

 *  - previously on Committee.
 *  - admin with CU and OS.
 *  - previously on Committee.
 *  - responsible attitude to adminship and excellent work within the anti-vandalism field.
 *  - demonstrated ability to handle disputes and close them effectively at ANI.
 *  - previously on Committee.
 *  - admin with CU and OS.
 *  - admin with CU
 *  - only recently became active again but seems to be an experienced candidate, so moving to Support.

Oppose

 *  - resigned admin privileges under cloud, recent block/poor block log, subject to sanctions, odd mentality re. Arbcom.
 *  - not an administrator, not able to deal with disputes effectively, recent block/poor block log, uncivil attitude.
 *  - not an administrator, frequently involved in disputes.

Conclusion
8 of the 9 candidates I supported will serve two-year terms at ArbCom. None of the candidates whom I opposed are serving.