User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2016

Criteria

No time, unfortunately, to do in-depth research so all you're going to get is choices based on vague impressions though I promise I'm not going to make a recommendation without reading the answers to questions (except in the cases of DougWeller and nybrad). Other than that, buyer beware, use with care. If you're looking for a real in-depth guide, wait for the one that, hopefully, User:Bishonen will unveil at an opportune moment.

I'm not sure reading responses to questions is going to help. There seems to be some sort of malaise over the elections - few candidates, no interesting questions. Still, I'll do my best.

Rating

1. Support: Yup. Vote for them.
2. Neutral: Doesn't mean much. Don't really know the candidate
3. Oppose: Please don't vote for them. Really. The very fact that they've chosen to run means they have lousy decision making skills!

Candidate	Bottom line	Thoughts
Calidum (talk · contribs)	Oppose	Seems mellower than in the past but, even though this is apparently the year of the maverick outsider, Wikipedia ain't broke yet so let's not risk it.
DeltaQuad (talk · contribs)	Oppose	Reluctantly because I actually liked the answers to most of the questions, particularly the ones asked by Collect. But, when I was puzzled by the comments on the 500/30 protection in response to Ajraddatz's question. The only way that would make sense is if someone has barely done any editing and lo behold, when I look at this, that's what I see. That's way too low a contribution to content to make me comfortable supporting.
DGG (talk · contribs)	Oppose	The responses to even the most basic questions are sketchy at best. For example, consider the very first question: "Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions". All that is required is a yes, inevitable or no, not inevitably. Instead we get a 'it depends on what we find during the case" which doesn't make sense because the findings become clear only when we're well inside the case and, obviously, at that point the need for sanctions would be perfectly clear. DGG has either misunderstood the question or just hasn't taken the time and effort to craft a good response. Neither of which is encouraging.
DougWeller (talk · contribs)	Support	No question. Doug is the rare editor who is an excellent workhorse content maven as well as the sensible spotter of deviant Wikipedian behavior.
Euryalus (talk · contribs)	Support	The answers to questions are a tad wishy-washy, and I don't agree with the AE waiting period response. (Is that a solution to a non-problem? Where is this abuse?) But, I really liked the judgement shown in the answer to RSChen's question (re the resignation from arbcom in 2015). Looks like a careful and thoughtful person so support it is.
Ks0stm (talk · contribs)	Support	I have a good feeling about this one. The answers to Rschen and Carrite's questions are generally pretty good. And the focus on appropriate scope in responses to biblio's questions are also spot on. I'm left with the impression of a serious person who will weigh what they do carefully.
LFaraone (talk · contribs)	Oppose	Though the editor has yet to answer all the questions, I'm suggesting an oppose vote. I'm still disappointed with their actions during the Yngvadottir desysop which showed a rule bound mentality that is not suitable, imo, on arbcom. Given that they've been away most of this year, they'll probably miss out on nuances and undercurrents in cases and that's not a good combination with a follow the rules outlook. Anyway, why would someone stay away for a year and then come back and then run for arbcom as practically the first thing they do? Isn't there an encyclopedia to edit out there? Perhaps because they've never actually done much editing anyway
Mkdw (talk · contribs)	Support	I'm going to say support mainly because of their response to the paid editing question. But, that's not a whole lot to go on so do also use your own judgement!
Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)	Support	Obviously. You have to support your mom for President and you have to support Newyorkbrad for Arbcom. We hold these truths to be self evident!
Salvidrim! (talk · contribs)	Support	I was favorably disposed to this one (Apparently Canadian and Canadians are in these days!) but am unimpressed by the "I like all the candidates" response. It shows a lack of ability to discriminate and to weigh alternatives. Which, I would think, is almost the minimal requirement to be an even passable arbitrator. Still, will wait for the editor to make up their mind. Though, I must say, the inability to decide is also worrisome. He hasn't withdrawn so I'll move this to weak-ish support. I doubt if we'll go wrong here but weak-ish support because of the indecisiveness shown above.
Writ Keeper (talk · contribs)	Support	This is a risky support. Based on the responses to questions (and I suggest you read the responses to SilkTork's questions and the shorter, but still enlightening, one to Drmies question). Let's just say that there is a non-zero likelihood that Writ Keeper will either resign or burrow themselves in some secure spot if they get a few difficult cases. But, on the flip side, I like the fact that they don't seem to take the whole thing too seriously and that's a healthy attitude that seems to be missing from too many of wikipedia's functionaries. Plus, of course, Writ Keeper is likable and I wouldn't mind joshing with them over a beer :)