User:Peacemaker67/ACE2019

G'day and welcome to my ArbCom 2019 Voters Guide
OK, this is a first, but given the upheaval across Wikipedia over the last couple of years, and what I consider some pretty bad ArbCom decision-making at times, I'm having a stab at this guide thingo myself. No doubt many will violently disagree with all or some of the below, so just ignore what I say and skip on to someone else's guide that better fits your way of thinking. Or better yet, independently examine each of the candidates against your own criteria and make up your own mind... Maybe no-one actually reads these things anyway.

By way of intro, I've been here since since 2011, an admin since 2016, a WikiProject Military history coordinator for five of the last six years, and have contributed to 50 Featured Articles/Lists, mainly working in the rather disputed area of Yugoslavia in World War II.

Philosophy
We are here to build an encyclopaedia, and Arbs need to understand what that involves and the challenges that content creators face. That means my idea of a really good candidate for Arb needs to have 50% of their edits in article space. Obviously that is a high bar, and not all of the candidates are anywhere near that, but I favour those who are. I also have the highest respect for anyone who has taken an article/list to Featured, so extra brownie points for anyone who has done that, and the more FAs/FLs the better. They also need to understand what the scope of ArbCom is, conduct. Equally, they need to understand that it is not ArbComs job to stray into trying to make rulings on content disputes and sourcing. An example of a case opened on dubious grounds and where ArbCom strayed into a content dispute is 2018's WP:ARBGWE, which I asked a question about and will reference where relevant in this guide. In the interests of full disclosure, I chose to be a party to the case in order to represent the opposite side in the matters under discussion, gave as good as I got, and there were no adverse findings against me. I am also concerned about developments in this case, where ArbCom went beyond its remit to apply article sourcing expectations. Sourcing guidelines for controversial historical topics should be developed through consensus among content creators. Again, ArbCom straying into content areas. ArbCom has enough work in dealing with conduct issues properly, it doesn't need "mission creep" into content areas that should be left to the community.

Further points on Arbs. If a candidate is already an Arb (or has been one in the past) they need a good track record of decisions to accept/reject cases and of good decisions within those cases. If they are an admin (in my view not a requirement to be elected as an Arb) they need to have used the tools enough that we can be assured they have good judgement and are not overzealous or oversensitive. The last is very important for all candidates, Arbs must have a thick skin, so overreactions to questions are a red flag to me. Finally, we need a mix of experienced Arbs and new blood.

So here goes, apologies if I've missed some ancient Arb service etc, just let me know and I'll modify the blurb (and my guide if justified).

Current or former Arbs

 * Beeblebrox 23% article space, no FAs. Ex-Arb (January 2014 - December 2014) and current admin with a good track record. Pretty meh answer to my question, massive overreaction to my follow-up comment (wanting it struck etc). Low article space percentage, no FAs and too quick to jump to conclusions, so Oppose
 * Casliber 51% article space, 183 FAs. Ex-Arb (January 2009 – October 2009, January 2011 – December 2012, January 2016 – December 2017) and current admin with a good track record. Didn't like their answer to my question about the acceptance of WP:ARBGWE, but the extremely strong content creation and Arb experience gets them over the line. Support
 * David Fuchs 52% article space, 49 FAs. Ex-Arb (January 2011 – December 2014) and current admin with a good track record. Wasn't hugely impressed by their answer to my question about the acceptance of WP:ARBGWE, but strong content creation and Arb experience gets them over the line. Support
 * DGG 33% article space, no FAs. Ex-Arb (January 2015 – December 2018) and admin with a good track record. Definitely did not cover themselves with glory during WP:ARBGWE, including voting for taking the case and for the TBAN of Cinderella157, which was a crucial vote in terms of displaying sound judgement. Also wanted to pat the complainant on the back, response to my question pretty poor. Low article space percentage, no FAs, so Oppose
 * Krakatoa Katie 34% article space, no FAs. Current Arb (January 2018 – present) and admin with a good track record. Remains of the belief that acceptance of WP:ARBGWE was the right decision, also voted to TBAN Cinderella157 during WP:ARBGWE. Voted for the article sourcing expectations in the Anti-Semitism in Poland case. Low article space percentage, no FAs, so Oppose
 * Newyorkbrad 12.8% article space, no FAs. Ex-Arb (January 2008 - December 2014, January 2017 - December 2018) and current admin with a good track record. Had mixed feelings about accepting WP:ARBGWE which is a plus, but despite his prevarication, was counted as voting for acceptance. Opposed TBAN of Cinderella157 during WP:ARBGWE, another plus. Am a bit concerned that Brad is effectively a professional Arb, but we need some stability as well as new blood. Support despite the very low mainspace edits and lack of FAs, I make an exception for Brad, his track record as an Arb makes up for that, and there will hopefully be others with strong content creation histories on the new committee.
 * Thryduulf 23% article space, no FAs. Ex-Arb (January 2015 – December 2015) and current admin with a good track record. Thoughtful response to my question about WP:ARBGWE, but ultimately comes down for accepting the case. Makes unfounded assumptions about my follow-on comment. Very low article space percentage, no FAs, so Weak oppose
 * Worm That Turned 24% article space, 2 FAs. Current Arb (January 2013 - December 2014, January 2018 – present) and admin with a good track record, current 'crat, good communication with the rest of us during WP:ARBFRAM. Had mixed feelings about accepting WP:ARBGWE, but voted for acceptance anyway and remains of that view, also voted to TBAN Cinderella157 during WP:ARBGWE. Voted for the article sourcing expectations in the Anti-Semitism in Poland case. I'm not a big fan of concentrating the powers of an Arb and a 'crat, preferring that they remain separate. Despite the low article space percentage, Weak support as he just gets over the line due to communication during WP:ARBFRAM plus the FAs.
 * Xeno 21% article space, no FAs. Ex-Arb (January 2011 – December 2012) and ex-admin with a good track record, current 'crat. Bit of a concern about inactivity up until recently. See my comments above about separation of powers. Very low article space percentage, no FAs, so Weak oppose

Others

 * Barkeep49 35% article space, one FL. Current (but recent) admin. Good response to my question and follow-up comment. Enough there for a Weak support
 * Bradv 37% article space, no FAs. Current admin with good track record and Arb clerk, although I note some disquiet about the clerking on WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Responses to WP:ARBFRAM questions a positive. In general the response to my question was meh, and the content vs conduct aspect was lost. Neutral
 * Calidum 39% article space, no FAs. Not an admin. Not sure about temperament. Response to my question pretty poor, no analysis of the decision-making. I really dislike candidates putting out their own voter guides. Oppose
 * Enterprisey 27% article space, no FAs. Current admin with a good track record. A bit of thinking went into the response to my question, but I think they missed the point about conduct vs. content. Not enough here when combined with the low article space percentage and lack of FAs. Weak oppose
 * Gadfium 64% article space, one FA. Current admin with a good track record. Impressed by the statement, but not with the response to my question, which I think missed the point inherent in the case, its acceptance and outcomes. Weak support based mainly on the percentage in article space and the FA.
 * Hawkeye7 60% article space, 74 FAs. Former admin, desysopped for cause, two failed RfAs since then. I have had years of interaction with Hawkeye within WikiProject Military history, including as a fellow coordinator and have never been concerned about his judgement. He is a brilliant content creator and always has the best interests of the project in mind. His answers to my question and follow-on comment were spot on, nailed the issues inherent in the case. I acknowledge that the community perhaps does not know Hawkeye as well as I do, or perhaps see something I don't, but he has the content creation chops in spades, so Support
 * Isarra I enjoy a joke nomination as much as the next person, and enjoyed reading the questions and answers, but we ask ArbCom to make important decisions on behalf of the community, and it should be treated seriously. I didn't even bother asking my question. Strong oppose
 * Kudpung 24% article space, no FAs. Current admin, but understand there is a bit of an issue with an ongoing Arb who did well during WP:ARBFRAM (GorillaWarfare), which gives me pause due to potential conflicts within the committee. The low article space count and the response to my question that "the end justifies the means" regarding WP:ARBGWE, combined with the apparent issue with GW means a definite no from me. Oppose
 * Llywrch 75% article space, no FAs. Current admin with a good track record. Quite concerned about the comment that ArbCom will need to get involved in ruling on content, this is a hard and fast rule for me. So, despite the high article space percentage, Oppose
 * Maxim 51% article space, 8 FAs. Current admin with a good track record, also a 'crat. See my comments above about separation of powers. The response to my question shows some nuance, and I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Content creation excellent, so overall Support
 * Richwales 40% article space, and whilst inactivity is an issue, I take them at their word they'll be available. 2 FAs. Current admin with a good track record. Response to my question shows nuance and concern about ArbCom getting involved in content disputes, so combined with the content creation, Support
 * SoWhy 35% article space, one FA. Current admin with a good track record. Thoughtful response to the question, but ultimately didn't drill down enough, relying too much on Newyorkbrad's response to the question (which was actually equivocal in the case itself). Weak support mainly based on the thoughtful response to my question and the FA.
 * The Rambling Man 51% article space, 21 FAs. Not an admin or 'crat (anymore). Response to my question pretty good, reflecting the poor justification for taking on the case amongst many Arbs. Also sees ArbCom as a last resort. Whilst a feisty operator who has been on the wrong end of the Arbgun a couple of times, I think ArbCom needs more people who think outside the box and who have content creation at heart. Despite the voter guide, Weak support