User:Reaper Eternal/ACE2022

My thoughts on the 2022 arbitration committee election (candidate list).

What do I look for?

I do not want editors who cause drama. The level of dramatics at ArbCom cases tends towards the absurd, so we do not need an arbitrator fanning the flames. I look for cases of dispute resolution, especially where the disputes were successfully resolved. While I'm no civility cop, I do consider incivility and profanity to be generally unhelpful in the dispute resolution process. While a regular editor or admin can get away with occasionally blowing up and venting, an arbitrator needs to be a shining example of calmness, since arbitrators will have to deal with angry and upset editors on a regular basis.

I also look for article content creation. Content creation indicates that the aspiring arbitrator understands Wikipedia's policies, and he or she will know what articles mean to the writers. Content creators on ArbCom will have sympathy towards productive editors being baited and less likely, in my opinion, to simply slap symptoms without treating the cause. Furthermore, involvement in the featured article and good article creation process, either as a reviewer or a nominator, will result in occasional disputes over whether something is an improvement. Successful resolution of these minor disputes demonstrates that someone can likely resolve larger disputes that end up before ArbCom.

How many people should I support?

I personally will only support up to as many people as there are seats available (8 for this election) to maximize the chances of my preferred candidates getting elected. Other people who I would have supported get ruled down to neutral.

Key evidence

BoldLuis blocked

BoldLuis blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia for two days. Roughly translated, the blocking reason is: "Does not translate articles correctly, does not translate references, does not follow the Manual of Style, and continually creates articles even though warned." (Spanish speakers, feel free to correct me if I've screwed up the translation; my Spanish sucks.)

Candidate summary

A table for easy reference! This table is sorted alphabetically and not in any order of preference.

Candidate	Years of experience	Thoughts	Verdict
Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	Barkeep49 is one of the stronger incumbent arbitrators. I've interacted with him more than most of the other arbitrators and have always found him honest and willing to listen. He has a very long and open statement of his beliefs and goals here, for those who wish to read them. I'd recommend everybody who intends on voting, whether in support or opposition, to read this page. Unless something major turns up, I can't imagine not supporting Barkeep49.	Strong support
BoldLuis (talk · contribs)	0	Claims to be a jurist. I'll probably need to ask a question as to which definition of "jurist" he's using. With his block on the Spanish Wikipedia (see above) and edits like this recent one, BoldLuis is not ready to be an arbitrator.	Strong oppose
CaptainEek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	I voted neutral on her last time. That said, her tenure as an arbitrator has been quite good, and her statement promises to continue that work. In contrast to most arbitrators, she has not massively reduced her editing while sitting as an arbitrator. She also claims to have been very active on the arbitration mailing list, answering over one thousand emails. Obviously, I cannot verify this for myself, but I see no reason not to trust her. Despite this, I have to be honest: Blocking Giano (talk · contribs) here was a poor decision that brushes against WP:INVOLVED.	Support
GeneralNotability (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	GeneralNotability is a fellow checkuser who I have had several pleasant interactions with. He seems competent. Minus points for dodging TheresNoTime's question on UCoC. His answer contains a fair number of words, but says nothing about how he actually envisions ArbCom working with the WMF under the UCoC. (Or, alternatively, saying he will not enforce the UCoC without local approval like Beeblebrox has.) He did answer Red-tailed hawk's question, though. L235 vouches for him here.	Support
Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	I supported him last time. His answers to the questions are good, so I see no reason not to support him again.	Support
L235 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	L235 is another excellent incumbent arbitrator. I have always respected his opinions. Good answers to questions.	Strong support
Moneytrees (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	Very active WP:CCI admin. His joke sock was long enough ago that I can ignore it. He has some of the best answers to the questions.	Support
Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	It seems this is the year of the excellent incumbents. Primefac has always had my respect, and his well-reasoned comments at arbitration are always made calmly and respectfully. As with CaptainEek, I have to be honest: Blocking Giano (talk · contribs) here was a poor decision.	Support
Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)	0	Robert is possibly the most active user ever voluntarily resolving content disputes at WP:DRN. This is a massive plus setting him apart from everyone else in this list. I'm unconcerned by his not being an administrator; in fact, having non-admin representation on ArbCom is a good thing. His failed RFA from 2017 appears to be mostly due to poor CSD tagging, which is irrelevant for ArbCom since ArbCom neither deletes articles nor writes CSD policy. Good answer to TheresNoTime's question. Good answer to RoySmith's question. Reasonable answer to Red-tailed hawk's question.	Support
Sdrqaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	Honestly, just lack of experience.	Oppose
SilkTork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2.5	SilkTork is an experienced arbiter who I have a lot of respect for. He resigned partway through his second term as a response to WP:FRAM. I am not a huge fan of his answers to questions, but I can respect them. Ultimately ruled to neutral due to reaching the limit of 8 candidates I will support. (I would have supported SilkTork otherwise.)	Neutral
Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	0	Strongly opinionated and very vocal about her views. While everyone has a POV, arbitrators need to be able to evaluate editors fairly and with a neutral point of view. Even more than simply being neutral, arbitrators need to appear neutral as well. The presence of or appearance of a biased ruling from ArbCom can destroy, will destroy, and has destroyed credibility. The recent block of Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) in a manner that was most likely involved is also a major cause for concern.	Strong oppose