Want to thank all those that are willing to volunteer for the most thankless job on Wikipedia. The vast majority of even those I'm opposing would make better arbitrators than myself....nevertheless, not everyone is well suited for a seat on the committee.
Support edit
- Casliber. Dedicated content writer, well versed in all matters of the pedia. I've always found them to be mature, calm and well balanced in their mission. Only one editor has more featured articles and their previous service on the committee was generally a solid performance.
- Opabinia regalis. This is my wildcard support. My thinking is that being away from the pedia for a while is a good thing and might help bring a less entrenched idealism to the committee.
- Drmies. Earnest and usually correct about most issues. Well rounded, nearly blemish free and mature candidate.
- Kelapstick. Looks like a trustworthy nonpartisan potential. Probably a safe bet.
*Timtrent. Timtrent will do fine but they will have to recuse on any article related to 9/11.Seems to have found he doesn't have enough time to be on the committee.
- Callanecc. Hum...seems mainly interested in the management of rather than the writing of the pedia. Not that this is a bad thing, but I tend to prefer to see more content experience. Considering there are no major issues, I'm supporting.
- Kudpung. Has been at the forefront of attempts for Rfa reform. Perhaps even banging that particular drum too frequently. However, I believe this candidate will be non-partisan in decisions.
- Rich Farmbrough. A cautious support.
Oppose edit
- Kirill Lokshin. Nearly inactive in article space editing for years. Recent out of the blue controversial block led to a currently festering arbitration case. Seemed clueless when presented with evidence in past cases when he was previously on the committee.
- MarkBernstein. I cannot find any substantive editing to speak of. Cursory examination of editing indicates repeated AE complaints filed by him against others or vice versa. Ill suited for the role.
- NE Ent. Just seems to be focused on drama boards and too little on content, though I tend to agree with their opinions more often than not. I won't support on this go.
*Samtar. Simply put, too few edits to allow me to support.
- Mahensingha. Ditto...insufficient contributions to be qualified.
- Gamaliel. As long as I've been editing (eleven years) Gamaliel has been around. He certainly has the tenure and experience but I think he has a partisan streak to him that makes me doubt his neutrality on numerous topics, and I'm not sure he sees that he may need to recuse so often that his seat will seem wasted.
- GorillaWarfare. I supported this candidate when they ran before but simply cannot do so again. I have grave concerns that this candidate is simply too partisan for a seat.
- Keilana. Good content work but a questionable block on a major editor where the responses for such action were initially haughty and lacked insight.
- Kevin Gorman. Not even 10k manual edits nor any content work of note. Partisan bickering and platforming equals a big soapbox which in this case should be denied.
- Thryduulf. I've been disappointed with this sitting arb due to hardline black and white stance on issues. While some rigidity is welcome as it indicates backbone, excessively uncompromising stances are not welcome.
- LFaraone. Sitting arbitrator. Not sure I like the way this candidate is leaning in some current cases and wish they had more discussion to add to them. I'm opposing due to recent actions.
Undecided/neutral edit
- Wildthing61476. Does not appear to have necessary background to sit on the committee. Neutral.
- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Neutral.
- Hawkeye7. Strong content editor but like me was desysoped and is not currently an admin. Recent comments indicate possible partisan stance so I have moved Hawkeye7 to neutral.
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |