 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
For this election there are 11 vacant seats. Support percentage is calculated by: support / (support + oppose). The top candidates with >60% support will be elected to two-year terms, and the top candidates with >50% support will be elected to one-year terms. Eight of the eleven seats may be filled by two-year terms, the remaining three can only be filled by one-year terms, even if there are eleven candidates all with 60% support.
This page in a nutshell
edit | I've now updated this section with the final results. A green circle  indicates that the user was elected; a red circle  means the user was not elected. Mz7 (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC) |
alphabetical order
|
|
|
Candidates
edit| Name | Comments | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · count · block log) | I have personally interacted with Barkeep49 extensively. He believes in Wikipedia passionately, and over the past year, he has grown more willing to speak up whenever he thinks he can provide meaningful input—and meaningful input does he provide. Barkeep49's experience on Wikipedia is diverse. He is one of the coordinators of the new page patrol effort and has written numerous articles himself; as a result, he has a lot of experience both in curating encyclopedia content and in writing encyclopedia content. He became an administrator in September 2019 (RfA), which is admittedly pretty recent. However, he was encouraged to run by editors whom I respect, like Risker, and honestly speaking he is someone whose judgment I trust instinctively. He's not always right (no one is always right), but what he has to say will always make you think carefully about your own position on the matter. If you are looking for a highly sensible "fresh face" on the Arbitration Committee, I encourage you to vote support for Barkeep49. | Support |
| Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Beeblebrox previously served on the Arbitration Committee after having been appointed to a one-year term in 2013. After leaving the Committee, he kept his checkuser and oversight access; he is active as an oversighter, but not so much as a checkuser, which resulted in some discussion when he asked for checkuser back in November 2019. I am mostly familiar with Beeblebrox through his activity at WP:UAA, where he is knowledgeable about common practices. | Neutral |
| Bradv (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Bradv is also someone whom I have personally interacted with extensively. Bradv is a clerk for the Arbitration Committee and is consequently already familiar with arbitration procedures and the kinds of on-wiki activities that the Committee handles on a day-to-day basis. I was one of the editors who nominated Bradv for RfA in August 2019 (RfA), which is admittedly fairly recent, but like Barkeep49, Bradv was encouraged to run by Risker, and while he is not afraid to consider alternative viewpoints and factor them into his thinking (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/Opinion for a great example of this), he is also not hesitant to share his views and engage with you constructively if he thinks something is wrong or could be done better. I think he would make a great arbitrator. | Support |
| Calidum (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Calidum has run unsuccessfully for ArbCom several times now: in 2011, 2014, and 2016. Calidum has never been an administrator.[1] Calidum's block in April 2017 for "personal attacks, vandalism, harassment, and abuse of advanced permissions" also doesn't help their case; this is precisely the behavior which arbitrators are expected to prevent and handle. | Oppose |
| Casliber (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Casliber previously served three terms on the Arbitration Committee, having run successfully in 2008, 2010, and 2015, so he is already quite experienced at being an arbitrator. He is an active content contributor to Wikipedia, which held true even during his past ArbCom terms. He had the honor of writing Wikipedia's five-millionth article (speaking of which, six million articles is coming soon...). He clearly cares a lot about the project, and I have no reasons to oppose his candidacy. | Support |
| David Fuchs (talk · contribs · count · block log) | David Fuchs previously served two consecutive terms on the Arbitration Committee, having run successfully in 2010 and 2012. He has been active at writing featured content on Wikipedia, and aside from relative unfamiliarity with him, I can find no reason to believe he would be a bad fit to return to the Arbitration Committee. | Support |
| DGG (talk · contribs · count · block log) | DGG previously served two consecutive terms on the Arbitration Committee, having run successfully in 2014 and 2016. He ran unsuccessfully for a third term in 2018, but the primary reason he was unsuccessful was because the size of the Arbitration Committee was decreased to 13 arbitrators as a result of WP:ACERFC2018. If it had not been decreased, DGG would have been elected to a two-year term; he just barely didn't make the cut. DGG is generally pretty reasonable.[2] | Support |
| Enterprisey (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Enterprisey is one of our most valuable technical contributors here on Wikipedia. He passed RfA in January 2019 (RfA), which I supported wholeheartedly because I felt that his technical skills would bring wonders to the admin toolset. I am inclined to support Enterprisey because he could contribute his technical experience to ArbCom, but that strikes me more a task for an ArbCom clerk rather than an arbitrator. | Neutral |
| Gadfium (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Gadfium is a long-time Wikipedia administrator (2004 RfA). This is his first time running for ArbCom. Based on his editing statistics, Gadfium primarily edits the mainspace and as an administrator is mostly active in blocking vandals and deleting pages. Before running for ArbCom, he rarely participated in the project space—in his candidate statement he admits to not being very involved in "WikiPolitics" (perhaps in reference to project space discussions; avoiding drama isn't necessarily a bad thing—that's what I typically do—but it can be quite zero-to-sixty to go from just simple vandalism to arbcom) until Fram in June 2019. I think as a long-time administrator, I would not be too unhappy if he were elected, but I'm also thinking I like candidates with a bit more project space involvement. | Neutral |
| Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · count · block log) | I think Hawkeye7 is here for the right reasons, but unfortunately my impression of him is based primarily off of his unsuccessful RfA attempts in August 2019 and February 2016. He has administrative experience through being an administrator from November 2009 (RfA) to February 2012 (desysop), but while I do not think he is the worst candidate in this field, against a deep field like this year's, I think there are better candidates for the job. | Oppose |
| Isarra (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Isarra has run unsuccessfully for ArbCom several times in the past: in 2013, 2014, and 2018. She is one of our active technical contributors on Wikipedia; she spearheaded the project to create the new Timeless skin. I have a good impression of Isarra as a Wikimedia contributor, but I don't think she would be a good ArbCom candidate. I do not really appreciate her facetious candidate statement. It really comes off like she would not take her role as an arbitrator seriously, and her questions page appears to reflect that as well. It is true that sometimes Wikipedia editors get so invested in their conflicts here that they lose perspective on just how unimportant it is that a comma is in a certain place on an obscure Wikipedia article, but many of the conflicts that come before ArbCom are some of the project's most serious and protracted, and they don't deserve flippant responses. | Oppose |
| KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · count · block log) | KrakatoaKatie is a current member of the Arbitration Committee, serving since 2017. Before becoming an arbitrator, she was one of our active checkuser and oversight right-holders, conducting sockpuppet investigations and handling sensitive privacy matters. One of the Arbitration Committee's main responsibilities that isn't typically public-facing is its role in resolving private disputes that aren't suitable for public discussion, such as cases involving off-wiki harassment or misuse of checkuser and oversight permissions. KrakatoaKatie already has a lot of experience dealing with these sensitive matters, both before becoming an arbitrator and through being an arbitrator. She is also another administrator whose judgment I trust instinctively, and she is correct about there being insufficient female candidates in this election. | Support |
| Kudpung (talk · contribs · count · block log) | I'm afraid my impression of Kudpung is not good because of this negative interaction with GorillaWarfare, who is a current arbitrator and whom Kudpung would be colleagues with if elected. I don't see Kudpung and GorillaWarfare having a working relationship in the future, and the dynamic this would create on the Committee is a net negative, in my view. This is notwithstanding his answers to Rschen7754's questions. Once again, in a deep field like this one, I feel there are better candidates. | Oppose |
| Llywrch (talk · contribs · count · block log) | To be honest, Llywrch is the only standing candidate whose name I did not recognize; I don't think I've ever encountered them before now. Based on their editing statistics, they are primarily active in content creation. They became an administrator in August 2003—one of the oldest RfAs: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Llywrch—however, they use the admin toolset very infrequently. According to xtools, they only have about 35 blocks, 25 page protections, and 211 deletions in the 16 years they've been an administrator. Given that the role of an arbitrator is to resolve the most serious user conduct disputes facing Wikipedia, my feeling is that I would prefer more administrative experience (i.e. project space participation). | Oppose |
| Maxim (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Maxim has been an administrator (RfA) and bureaucrat (RfB) for years now; it's safe to say that he has been around the block. My impression of Maxim is good, based on my interactions with him and my observations of him (at WP:BN, for example). He frequently gives reasonable insights and is not afraid to apologize. | Support |
| Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Newyorkbrad is a seasoned arbitrator, having served no less than four two-year terms in the past (2007, 2010, 2012, 2016). During the years in which he is not on the Committee, sometimes people forget he isn't on the Committee. I imagine for a lot of voters, this is the most instinctive support vote to cast. Newyorkbrad can carry over a lot of institutional memory of past ArbComs, and he is another editor who may not always be right (no one is always right), but will almost always have something to say that you have to consider carefully and seriously. | Support |
| Richwales (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Richwales has been an administrator since 2011 (RfA) and an oversighter since around 2013. He ran unsuccessfully for ArbCom in 2012 and 2013. The primary thing that gives me pause is Richwales's low activity level the past several years—his last 500 edits go back to July 2018 at the time I am writing this, and this pattern of inactivity extends back to 2014. This is not total inactivity by any means, but it is enough to make me challenge whether Richwales has enough time to meet the demands of ArbCom—the Committee's proceedings often suffer from lengthy delays and missed deadlines; we are all volunteers, of course, but if there are other suitable candidates who can dedicate more time, I would prefer them on the committee. Richwales addressed his activity level his response to The Rambling Man's question—I'm thinking I would look more favorably upon a run next year after demonstrating he has more time to dedicate to the project. | Oppose |
| SoWhy (talk · contribs · count · block log) | SoWhy is another longtime editor and administrator (2008 RfA). I most associate SoWhy's name with his views on the criteria for speedy deletion—he's one of our most active administrators working on page deletion matters.[3] His blocks and page protections are infrequent in comparison, but there is a good enough track record. He is a skilled content writer, based on his user page achievements, and my general impression of their administrative judgment is good. | Support |
| The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · count · block log) | The Rambling Man has been involved in multiple ArbCom cases involving his own conduct—see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man. | Oppose |
| Thryduulf (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Thryduulf was previously a member of the Arbitration Committee for a one-year term elected in 2014. He was barely not reelected in 2015. He is an active member of the oversight team; he frequently gives reasonable advice to his fellow oversighters. | Support |
| Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Worm That Turned is another current member of the Arbitration Committee. If reelected, it would be his third term on the Committee (previous runs: |
Support |
| Xeno (talk · contribs · count · block log) | Xeno has a long range of experience: he has been an administrator since 2008 (RfA), a bureaucrat since 2010 (RfB), and was previously a member of the Arbitration Committee (elected in 2010 for a two-year term, but was almost completely inactive in his second year). He is generally reasonable.[4] | Support |
Footnotes
edit- ^ While it is not strictly necessary to be an administrator before being an arbitrator, I feel that much of what the Arbitration Committee does revolves around administrative work on Wikipedia: reviewing administrator conduct, handling problematic users, auditing checkuser/oversight actions. Especially in a deep field like this year's, I would prefer candidates with administrative experience.
- ^ After leaving the Committee, DGG kept his checkuser and oversight access; recently, he had his oversight permissions removed for inactivity, and in response he stated that he would have asked to keep oversight access in order to have read-only access. Personally, I feel that wanting oversight for read-only access misunderstands the purpose of oversight, which is to hide information from any form of normal access. It is true that some level of auditing is needed to prevent misuse, but this is an explicit responsibility of the Arbitration Committee, the members of which are exempt from CUOS activity requirements.
- ^ SoWhy's list of declined speedies is used by some RfA nominators to determine a candidate's involvement and understanding of speedy deletion policy. SoWhy's RfB in 2017 (which I opposed, for full disclosure) was unsuccessful in part because a few editors claimed that his views on speedy deletion could affect his ability to make dispassionate judgment calls at closing RfAs. It is possible this same opposing argument could be extended to ArbCom: could a stronger view of CSD policy compared to the norm affect his decision-making in an admin conduct case involving speedy deletion? My thinking is that his views on CSD policy are not so deviant from the norm that they would make him a bad arbitrator; in fact, most of the time they are fairly reasonable.
- ^ My only memorable disagreement with Xeno followed the ban of Fram in June 2019: Xeno boldly modified the page Wikipedia:Office actions to describe it as an "information page" rather than a "policy page". This action was eventually upheld by community consensus (RfC), but I felt a little frustrated with it at the time because I felt "information page" made it sound like something that could be disregarded at will; rather, admins could still be desysopped summarily for violating what was now an "information page", and emotions were understandably running high at the time, enough to break what I've long thought to be cardinal rules like "don't modify office actions".