User:Elonka/ACE2019
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Disclaimer: This page expresses my personal opinions and observations only. I encourage all voters to do their own research on the candidates.
Overview
[edit]For those who aren't sure what this is about: The Arbitration Committee is part of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. In fact, ArbCom is pretty much the last stop. For a general real world analogy, ArbCom is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. The arbitrators don't make decisions on article content, but they do issue rulings on complex disputes relating to user conduct, and they have considerable authority within the wiki-culture. Members of the Committee are usually elected for two-year terms (sometimes one or three), with a new batch elected each year.
In September 2019, an RfC took place concerning the format of the 2019 elections, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019.
Candidates will self-nominate from November 3 to November 12, and the voting period will run from November 19 to December 2. For details on voting eligibility, see the 2019 election page.
For this 2019/2020 cycle, the size of the Committee will be brought back to 15. With four arbitrators remaining on the committee, this means there will be 11 vacancies to be filled, for either one- or two-year terms.
My standards
[edit]This page that you are reading, contains my (Elonka's) thoughts on the current crop of ArbCom candidates. My general standards for a candidate are:
- Admin access
- Integrity
- Experience with article-writing
- Time-available for the project
- Hands-on knowledge of the dispute resolution processes.
I am also a strong supporter of civility, as I believe that rude behavior on the project can drive away other editors, and I would hope that ArbCom would help support that view; however, I also understand that not everyone has the same feelings about civility, so I am willing to support arbitrator candidates for other reasons than just that one.
Past votes
[edit]To see my thoughts on previous elections, check the history of:
Candidates
[edit]- Candidates are self-nominating from November 3 to November 12. Voting will run from November 19 until December 2.
- Gadfium (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
Support. Long time content contributor, administrator since 2004.
- Richwales (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Could potentially be a good arb, but I have concerns about inactivity. Then again, if he wants to take it on, I'll support.
- Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Has already achieved community trust in many venues such as handling bureaucrat duties, and is a current arbitrator
- Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
Oppose. Became an administrator in 2009, then de-sysopped in 2012. He needs to demonstrate community trust and become an admin again before running for ArbCom
- Casliber (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Has been an arbitrator in the past. Strong content editor.
- Thryduulf (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Weak support. Has been an arbitrator in the past, and I have supported him. I still wish he had more in the way of content contributions.
- Bradv (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Weak support. I wish he had more content contributions. He has one GA and a couple DYKs, but I wish he'd have at least one FA.
- Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Weak support. Many excellent qualities, though hasn't gotten an article to FA yet. Then again, has plenty of GAs. I am still thinking about this one.
- Isarra (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Oppose. Should run for admin before ArbCom.
- KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Current arbitrator.
- Xeno (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Past arbitrator, level-headed, easy support.
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Oppose. Was an admin, but is not currently. Should run to be reinstated as an admin, before trying for ArbCom.
- David Fuchs (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Former arbitrator, good content contributions.
- Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Former arbitrator, has checkuser and oversight access. Trusted by the community.
- Llywrch (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Long time administrator (2003), but would be new to ArbCom.
- Maxim (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Administrator, bureaucrat, has demonstrated community trust.
- SoWhy (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Longtime editor, has excellent content contributions, has been an administrator since 2008. Unsuccessfully ran for bureaucrat in 2010 and 2017,[2] narrowly missing consensus both times. I did a quick read through the Opposes on the RfBs, and though I could understand why the Opposers felt as they did, I did not find anything so compelling that it would eliminate SoWhy from a run at Arbitrator-ship.
- Kudpung (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Oppose. When I saw that he chose to be both a candidate, and also to run a candidate guide[3] on his opponents?? This candidate clearly does not understand the concept of CoI.
- Calidum (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Oppose. Has also run for ArbCom as "Hot Stop", with runs in 2011, 2014, and 2016. Still not an admin. My "Oppose" has not changed. Please run for administrator before ArbCom.
- DGG (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Support. Longtime Wikipedian, former arbitrator, has CheckUser access. Trusted member of the community, great candidate statement.
- Enterprisey (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • statement • questions
- Weak oppose. Enterprisey ran unsuccessfully for admin as "APerson" in 2015,[4] then very successfully in January 2019.[5] Has written many technical scripts & bots. However, I'm not seeing much activity in dispute resolution, nor has Enterprisey ever taken an article to "Featured" status. I am confident that Enterprisey has many ways that he can help the project, and ArbCom, but I am not convinced that actually being an arbitrator is a good fit at this time, so I am opposing. I do encourage him to continue his good work on the encyclopedia in the meantime, and if he can show some good hands-on experience in dispute resolution, along with some more content contributions, I might support a run in the future.
| These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |