User:Smallbones/ACE2015

Voting recommendations for the 2015 Arbitration Committee Elections

You can vote anytime before Sunday 23:59, 6 December, UTC

An editor is eligible to vote who:
 * (i) has registered an account before Wednesday 00:00, 28 October 2015
 * (ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday 00:00, 1 November 2015 and,
 * (iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote.

__NOINDEX__ The elections for the Arbitration Committee this year are all about bullying, especially bullying of women editors. This voters' guide lists my recommendations of candidates to support and those to oppose based on
 * their willingness to enforce the policies on WP:Civility and WP:Harassment and their awareness of the problem of bullying, especially regarding women editors.
 * their experience (good or bad), but I don't feel that multiple years of experience in several areas are needed to be an arb.

Candidates were asked if they think that I've put them in the wrong category - based on the above criteria. None have objected.

Recommendations
*See notes on candidates below

To vote, click the vote link in the green box at the top of this page. I'll suggest opening this page in another browser window, so that you can check my recommendations as you vote.

Pick your voting strategy
The mechanics of the election suggest that there are only 3 reasonable voting strategies. A neutral vote is effectively discarded - you are throwing your vote away if you vote neutral. Candidates who get more than 50% supports out of the remaining votes are then eligible to be elected, but only the 9 with the highest percentage of supports will actually be elected.
 * Strategy A - which I recommend, support all candidates who meet your requirements, oppose all who cannot convince you that they meet your requirements.
 * The issue for this election is whether ArbCom will enforce rules against bullying and harassment, especially of women editors. I believe that a large majority of editors support enforcing the rules against bullying. Thus, if most editors vote according to this strategy, candidates who support enforcement of the rules against bullying will all get more than 50% supports and other candidates will all get less than 50% supports.  Nine friendly candidates will win the election.


 * Strategy B - mostly ineffective. Vote only for your favorite 9 candidates, or fewer if less than 9 meet your standards.
 * Perhaps in a normal election this would be the strategy to use. You are giving your favorite candidates the best shot by voting this way. The problem is that many, perhaps most, of the votes cast according to this strategy will cancel out. "Extreme candidates", those with the most supporters, or those with the fewest opposers may win, but more moderate candidates - those who meet your basic standards - are at a disadvantage. While this strategy results in many votes canceling out, it is not completely useless.  Among those candidates that get 50% supports, voters who use this strategy may determine the final winners.


 * Strategy C - protest vote. "Vote against all".
 * It's obvious that these voters are not going to elect their favorite candidates. This strategy has been promoted surprisingly often during this election, probably by those who know their favorite candidates are not going to win anyway.  There are even proponents of voting to "hasten the day" that ArbCom and Wikipedia collapse.  Think long and hard before voting this way.  Do you really want Wikipedia to collapse?  The existence of this strategy is a very good argument for voting according to Strategy A.

Notes on candidates
 * All candidates that I strongly support have convinced me that they will take serious action to stop bullying and harassment, especially of women, when such a case comes before ArbCom. This is based on their candidate statements, answers to questions posed during the election, or in a few cases to actions they've taken on-Wiki.
 * All candidates that I support have convinced me of the above, but have experience on-Wiki that raises some questions.
 * Hawkeye7 - The best answers, and I will support him enthusiastically. Some will view the removal of his administrator tools as a negative
 * Kirill Lokshin - recent edits show that he is willing to take strong action against bullies, very early edits might raise some concerns, but that was then, this is now
 * MarkBernstein - Strong, brazen, outrageous support of women's rights on Wikipedia. Even Mark doesn't think he'll be elected, but a strong result will send a message
 * Candidates I oppose
 * Drmies - Per his candidate statement and answers to questions he seems proud that people call him "an enabler" of Eric Corbett
 * Kudpung - Very negative answers to the questions posed, seems to try to antagonize the questioner
 * LFaraone - Answers all about what he can't do
 * Mahensingha - Lack of experience
 * NE Ent - Ignores tough questions. Seems to be running on the "Vote against all" ticket
 * Rich Farmbrough - Answers and edit history are all over the place
 * Thryduulf - Seems to try hard, but most of his statements as an arb have been a bit off or unfocused. Answered my question about protecting women editors from harassment without mentioning women.
 * Wildthing61476 - lack of the right experience