2017 Arbitration Committee Election Guide
I am newer here, and this is my first attempt at a ARBCOM election guide, hence its somewhat late arrival. Nonetheless, I have reviewed the work of the sitting ARBCOM panel and thoroughly analysed all the candidates running for election so as to ascertain who is suitable for the job, I am not overly enamoured with the current panel and would like to see this election produce profound change in the manner in which it conducts business, as well as altering the link between adminship and a role as an ARB. I am in strong support of editors who share a philosophy regarding Wikipedia's role which aligns with mine, and those who work stoically in the background. So, without further ado, here goes.
Guide prepared by Stormy clouds ( talk).
| Candidate | Comments | Opinion |
|---|---|---|
| The Rambling Man | Strongest Support. One of the bastions of the encyclopedia, who is truly driven to improve the encyclopedia. Has a history with ARBCOM, though in my view represents the kind of overhaul which we should strive for, and will breath new life into the panel. Very satisfied with his answer to my question. |
 Support
|
| KrakatoaKatie | Admirable work on "Woman in Red" tied with comprehension of what the role entails and why it is important means that Katie is easy to endorse. |
Support
|
| Worm That Turned | Absence is not particularly worrying (as a newer editor I'd be a hypocrite to go after it), and attitude towards ARBCOM is commendable. Highly likable and I would be a proponent of the non-admin angle. |
Support
|
| SMcCandlish | Solid support, mainly as he played a long and storied role on the site in relation to edits, and like TRM, strives to improve the general state the project. Will inject hard work and devotion into the project, and I don't feel his lack of admin tools detracts from his campaign given his edit record. |
Support
|
| Premeditated Chaos | Critical of existing ARBCOM practices and promises to implement change. Alludes to considering cases on a meritocratic level, which would eliminate some of the more farcical cases. Strong on issues such as WP:PAID, and potent administrative work in the past. Seems good to go for me, despite recent inactivity, as she will inject new ethos into the panel. |
Support
|
| BU Rob13 | Rising high fast, and seems determined to go places. Answers to questions are strong, and I don't feel ambition, even if ambiguous, should not be shackled. |
Support
|
| Callanecc | Another sitting ARBCOM member. As I am dubious of some decisions made by the panel, and don't feel they would have the same impact as SMc or TRM, I will stay on the fence. Personal qualms include their attitude towards WP:PAID in relation to ARBCOM panelists and some previous decisions. |
 Neutral
|
| Opabinia regalis | OR is indicative of the status quo at ARBCOM, and so thoughts regarding her are ultimately governed by one's opinion of ARBCOM. Standing on her record, and acts as a balancing force on the panel who is decisive and swift, albeit a less frequent content editor. Some responses clash with ethos on civility, however, slightly diminishing her stature. |
Neutral (Leaning Support)
|
| Alex Shih | Sitting on the fence here for the same reasons as many others. Record is strong but far from the most impressive in the field. Only really run into him at WP:ITN/C where he mainly does admin work or proposes subjects of personal interest. Answers are not overly impressive, but don't detract from the campaign either. Could go either way here. |
Neutral
|
| RickinBaltimore | Seems to row in with the ARBCOM opinion on most issues, which makes him a status quo candidate without the experience and expertise as an ARB. I see him therefore as a bit of a redundancy, who would serve the project better externally as an anti-vandal. |
 Oppose
|
| Mailer diablo | Seems to me to have angled his campaign as an opportunistic attempt to exploit the vacuum, and has not picked a solid singular line in the campaign yet. Uncertainty leads inevitably to the risk-averse vote - no. |
Oppose
|
| Sir Joseph | From dubious political leanings, to bullying tactics, to my own run-ins with him, to his efforts to purge questions which he did not like and his persistent bans and lack of etiquette, this is a vehement oppose. Also has a nasty tendency to assume bad faith in other editors, meaning he lacks the competency and impartial judgement to be an ARB. Uses aggression as a handy cover for his ineptitude. |
Stringent Oppose
|
| SarekOfVulcan | Withdrawn from race. Motives for initial campaign are dubious, but corpus as an editor is impeccable. A superior campaign next time round would be endorseable. | Withdrawn |
| A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver | Disqualified. Getting banned mid-campaign does not inspire confidence in my view. | Disqualified |
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
2017 Arbitration Committee Election Guide
I am newer here, and this is my first attempt at a ARBCOM election guide, hence its somewhat late arrival. Nonetheless, I have reviewed the work of the sitting ARBCOM panel and thoroughly analysed all the candidates running for election so as to ascertain who is suitable for the job, I am not overly enamoured with the current panel and would like to see this election produce profound change in the manner in which it conducts business, as well as altering the link between adminship and a role as an ARB. I am in strong support of editors who share a philosophy regarding Wikipedia's role which aligns with mine, and those who work stoically in the background. So, without further ado, here goes.
Guide prepared by Stormy clouds ( talk).
| Candidate | Comments | Opinion |
|---|---|---|
| The Rambling Man | Strongest Support. One of the bastions of the encyclopedia, who is truly driven to improve the encyclopedia. Has a history with ARBCOM, though in my view represents the kind of overhaul which we should strive for, and will breath new life into the panel. Very satisfied with his answer to my question. |
Support
|
| KrakatoaKatie | Admirable work on "Woman in Red" tied with comprehension of what the role entails and why it is important means that Katie is easy to endorse. |
Support
|
| Worm That Turned | Absence is not particularly worrying (as a newer editor I'd be a hypocrite to go after it), and attitude towards ARBCOM is commendable. Highly likable and I would be a proponent of the non-admin angle. |
Support
|
| SMcCandlish | Solid support, mainly as he played a long and storied role on the site in relation to edits, and like TRM, strives to improve the general state the project. Will inject hard work and devotion into the project, and I don't feel his lack of admin tools detracts from his campaign given his edit record. |
Support
|
| Premeditated Chaos | Critical of existing ARBCOM practices and promises to implement change. Alludes to considering cases on a meritocratic level, which would eliminate some of the more farcical cases. Strong on issues such as WP:PAID, and potent administrative work in the past. Seems good to go for me, despite recent inactivity, as she will inject new ethos into the panel. |
Support
|
| BU Rob13 | Rising high fast, and seems determined to go places. Answers to questions are strong, and I don't feel ambition, even if ambiguous, should not be shackled. |
Support
|
| Callanecc | Another sitting ARBCOM member. As I am dubious of some decisions made by the panel, and don't feel they would have the same impact as SMc or TRM, I will stay on the fence. Personal qualms include their attitude towards WP:PAID in relation to ARBCOM panelists and some previous decisions. |
Neutral
|
| Opabinia regalis | OR is indicative of the status quo at ARBCOM, and so thoughts regarding her are ultimately governed by one's opinion of ARBCOM. Standing on her record, and acts as a balancing force on the panel who is decisive and swift, albeit a less frequent content editor. Some responses clash with ethos on civility, however, slightly diminishing her stature. |
Neutral (Leaning Support)
|
| Alex Shih | Sitting on the fence here for the same reasons as many others. Record is strong but far from the most impressive in the field. Only really run into him at WP:ITN/C where he mainly does admin work or proposes subjects of personal interest. Answers are not overly impressive, but don't detract from the campaign either. Could go either way here. |
Neutral
|
| RickinBaltimore | Seems to row in with the ARBCOM opinion on most issues, which makes him a status quo candidate without the experience and expertise as an ARB. I see him therefore as a bit of a redundancy, who would serve the project better externally as an anti-vandal. |
Oppose
|
| Mailer diablo | Seems to me to have angled his campaign as an opportunistic attempt to exploit the vacuum, and has not picked a solid singular line in the campaign yet. Uncertainty leads inevitably to the risk-averse vote - no. |
Oppose
|
| Sir Joseph | From dubious political leanings, to bullying tactics, to my own run-ins with him, to his efforts to purge questions which he did not like and his persistent bans and lack of etiquette, this is a vehement oppose. Also has a nasty tendency to assume bad faith in other editors, meaning he lacks the competency and impartial judgement to be an ARB. Uses aggression as a handy cover for his ineptitude. |
Stringent Oppose
|
| SarekOfVulcan | Withdrawn from race. Motives for initial campaign are dubious, but corpus as an editor is impeccable. A superior campaign next time round would be endorseable. | Withdrawn |
| A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver | Disqualified. Getting banned mid-campaign does not inspire confidence in my view. | Disqualified |
| These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |