 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Every year, I try to keep just one paragraph of my opinion for the elections. Once again, I very much thank each person that stands for these elections as it takes a modicum of courage to do so. I believe the ideal candidates are the ones who appreciate change and think resting at status quo is merely a waste of time. While candidates are a many, I think it's due process to select the ones who are most fitting (hence, the elections) and that's where I'll end my personal commentary as you can proceed on to read my opinions below.
While I used to do this every year, this is the first time in a while. 
Criteria edit
- Diplomatic etiquette
- Answers given
- General editing history
- Participation in contentious areas to demonstrate experience in such fields
- Utilization of current rights
- Commitment to transparency and reform for the better
- Valuing the community and its input
Voting strategies edit
- If you want the best chances for your choice of candidates, you should support them and oppose the rest (that's it!)
- Expanding on the point above, note that for each extra candidate you support, the weightage of that support goes down.
- Ideally, you should support people for the number of vacant seats (7) and oppose the rest for the "ideal" outcome.
- Depending on who you "have to have" on the committee and candidates who "can" be a part of the committee, you can rotate your preferences.
- Feel free to vote neutral on candidates that you would not mind seeing in the ArbCom but remember that you're making their shot at a seat a little bit harder.
Vote table edit
Recommended
Acceptable
| Username | Probable vote | Questions (15) | Involvement in community (20) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bradv (talk · contribs) |  |
11.0 | 15.0 | One of two incumbents up for re-election, Bradv was the first to file their candidacy. As comes with being a part of committee, there's a significant minority who are concerned with their actions as a part of the committee but I think they have done a good job, for most part of it. I've never been too eager with committee-ship right on the heels of an RfA (their previous candidacy) but credit should be given where due. I think they have a decent shot at a seat. |
| Primefac (talk · contribs) | |
14.0 | 18.0 | They are an admin and a crat (one of the younger ones). From personal interaction, I know them to be technically adept and courteous at all times. Also IIRC, they've been approached a fair number of times regarding ArbCom-ship so I don't doubt they will be a popular choice for a seat. Apart from that, they've been quite active for the past few years in different parts of the site (TfD/AN/crat chats) - and regarding the crat chats, I've appreciated their voice among the crats (a lot, if not the most) and have observed a lot of nuanced observations from them and thus, I have no doubt that they will be a solid addition to the committee. |
| Scottywong (talk · contribs) |  |
9.0 | 10.0 | One of our old-era admins with a reputation to precede them (in a good way) - but I'm uncertain of their activity levels in the recent past and coming future. They have made a lot of tools that us oldies have used or heard of (a lot of them have broken down or been replaced). While I don't fault their candidacy, I don't see myself supporting them now or in the near future without further community interaction and general activity. |
| Maxim (talk · contribs) | |
11.0 | 11.0 | Maxim is an old-era crat and admin - it's fair to say that their candidacy for the committee last year was unexpected, given their activity but they had enough reputation to carry it through for a one-year term. While their activity levels haven't improved, they have remained consistent, I would love to see more community involvement and interaction. That said, I think Maxim is one of those editors who understands the inner workings of the community and I appreciate their analysis wherever I spot it. Finally, I think their nuanced viewpoints in the committee deserves another term. |
| BDD (talk · contribs) | |
9.0 | 10.0 | Truth be told, BDD was not a name I expected on the ballot (sure, a lot of the other candidates weren't expected either). Also another old-era admin along with SW on the ballot, their activity has been on the decline - not to say they're inactive, they've been fairly consistent in 2020. The primary contentious point is their relative distance from traditionally administrative areas - such as WP:AN and WP:ANI, while not a fault in and of itself, I'm not quite sure about their ability with respect to dispute resolution - and that is basically what ArbCom does, as a hand-wavy summarization. To be quite clear, there's a possibility that BDD could be a good member on the committee but personally, I lack the confidence to be able to support them this election. |
| Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) | |
13.0 | 16.0 | This is B49's second run at the committee and the general consensus last year was that it was right on the heels of their RfA - while there's nothing wrong with that, to a lot of people that appears as overkill - also probably why they were not elected. This year they have an entire userpage on analysis (manifesto?) to boot. Personally from my interactions, I know them to be level-headed and good with words and most importantly, I like their determination in running for the consecutive election, which also proves the seriousness of their first run. With three endorsements already from some of the most respected members of the community (L235, PMC, Dreamy Jazz), I see no qualms supporting them this election. |
| L235 (talk · contribs) | |
13.0 | 20.0 | Apart from Tony, I think L235 has one of the highest chances of getting a seat. They have been a ArbCom clerk and an administrator for a while, enough experience for a seat according to many. Their community involvement remains high on-wiki and off-wiki and I don't suspect that will change in the future. Overall, this candidate has exhibited a good understanding of policies and the nuances of how enwiki works - it's a simple yes for me. |
| Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) | |
8.0 | 14.0 | Hawkeye7 is among the more popular content writers in this community. All of their RfAs have been flashpoints so I don't doubt their candidacy will be as well. They were desysoped for cause about 10 years ago but that event has been a perpetual skeleton in the closet (as evidenced in further RfAs) - but I must commend them on their complete frankness. Their activity levels remain consistent and I don't suspect they will be a "missing" member if elected. However, their most recent RfA in August 2019 does not demonstrate that they have the trust of the community - while that situation might change, I don't see it as likely. |
| CaptainEek (talk · contribs) |  |
11.0 | 15.0 | Another surprise on the ballot - it's quite rare to see candidates running for the committee in their RfA year (not impossible, just incredibly hard). Has an amazing demeanor on-wiki and off-wiki and doesn't shy away from being frank but not at the extent of hurting others, I find their nature of diplomacy quite unique. It's worth noting that their recent RfA was a flashpoint, with two prominent editors opposing them (one of them being on the ballot) - I suspect their tenure as an admin has swayed some of those detractors, however I think if their candidacy would be served better if they had taken a bit more time in administrative areas, trying to draw a parallel to Barkeep49's run the year prior. Notwithstanding, I think their answers to questions were good and will serve them well in drawing votes. They have my personal moral support, but this is hard call, primarily because of the presence of quite a few more experienced candidates and wildcards. |
| Guerillero (talk · contribs) | |
10.0 | 12.0 | From what I remember of their term as an arbitrator, they displayed a good understanding of policies and just simply put, intentions of people putting their cases - that's important in any arbitrator. But Guerillero displays the pattern that is all too familiar in a sitting arbitrator, i.e. gradual descent in on-wiki activity. I understand that a lot of committee work is behind the scenes but I don't feel comfortable with their prior history - if they will be able to remain a active member on the seat. This puts me in a awkward position - where although I would prefer them as a committee member, I'm not confident if they will serve actively. |
| SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) |  |
10.0 | 16.0 | SMcCandlish is one of the more prolific non-admin editors of this community. If you're looking for someone to not mince words at all, then SMC is one of the candidates for you (but yeah, I don't mean it as a positive or negative). I feel their arguments have a certain verbosity to it that sounds quite similar to something ArbCom would present as an argument but that does not change the reality of the community's expectations in an ideal candidate - which is to be an administrator. Simply put, their candidacy is more difficult than anyone else, but that's not to say that it's impossible. Personally, I've usually not supported them in the past but from further interactions and analysis, I have no recommendation to make this year. |
| Withdrawn | 14.0 | 19.0 | Strong endorsement from Mkdw (an outgoing arb). Tony is a solid Wikipedian and is probably one of the safest choices for a seat (along with Kevin aka L235). Known for speaking their mind, which would be a good addition for the committee (which has traditionally been more about "keeping it in line" but thankfully, the committee has come a long way since then). They are quite active on-wiki and off-wiki, so no concerns regarding their activity. Overall, I'm sure they will be an interesting addition and I will support their candidacy (in line with "not a jerk, has a clue"). |
Reminder! edit
Remember to cast your votes at least a few hours before the election ends. If you've not cast your votes yet, vote soon!
I voted!
|
|---|
SPID: 28737 -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- hQGMA5hD6+hWqpPMAQv8DBOw1PsfTpx7m4eM/NfKscH50sVLr/4jvEMTzYx/+nXP CstGqmSz/o7kr/as8SqaLxvzccEzkC0qlAH/kzjSZQkppye5AY3++eOJG9bxynVS sQz0p560MMxEFhgmmeZNCb79uwJzEPmVhaAw/64645uN/iU0PzOUwJb0+hLuxPGO HzQN5uwiAM4DO7NohyEPz0Gd5xMatTolAHPyispSqModz278h8AcN4BR/jfGzN/z jFxmB46WK2IXGKnFoVRAh1z2oA2yzEWhcbr2zt7EOwDliMxnDexBglJ7rL19RA9Y o34BuMpwiYFD1gFpvT5VpL9g1XpGGrVwF2g4guRXsqipYChgy7aG+N68iYtEtrFn ksEndMmWA6l7A6NyvTl+vVi6HZPzwcPZ9xAImAN8VhNLyieo0Yy79mTZx3IefDDx SaY5p5ir3wnrhgDHRVFT5L9XcXglS37GHTDINbh56NULkycWcMbdp1azPS8Td/hP OaNblKUg5Gnd7DhR4ZSU0ukBn4eIL4CHiGktPpencqXMCJ8ggjtlBPhfgngW7n5H 633g0vU+0LJmNFmC78NYksskmUr+iCJ0CD6mqkeAM6FXD9VfhszGpD2ckYdet9rK rSc1kLYEThTKPldRaYwam/sMRdM32B6xmS7swhfQOzkI+IuST7molv4AzTVEJrcb jfw3HrkxpqMv6H0iH04Zkw38kQwj9Fvf111iuj2TexhiqC85PsY/CgGk687nbbjN TKrRfsukhLh8+NkDedAxOgF0+FWVpJoVUpIUmOfl1rORblqnffyaKjCSWZbh6itV zv15j55AqH7E5pOUmjS5Pm+gkjZiXui0aixZp5vM6yFxPMmUzd72uMTmET1Pwrps y6QnyTss5YOI7fk8Rj9bpb8Y6+XhrRQm9WhHsh27yEeGfdE9PJrN302SFosnmlTb pHDPjTSQiTlm4KabYeHmKaNsW6gUzUW7TjoSkkJ4G8MVm8xOyM+pFiHrC8TpgIkX zqPOuhQdep5kJjHsELBCezBbZAlLsbym8qLfRM/4Jl/Uul29uKXrq0ThnvnKD4OV z6FkMOyOEBmO3iThbBe/7Av7ObHE573lEs3zGxzFAWEQ2JQS+/6asug6Lfaloae4 PwFnsU5k8Qfn5xsxjTgq4qsDZRi6G1GzW0aaERwfqDU2i6gWpNwg1mXCNbA9waYy ucC+VnNp/m2uMZUDz0+aCA0H/hsYJQY4Z1WqSkBtbVh8hqGla4gczFmkuYYIWhRz YSlXKa12KUAbHVmDpfoqlWKBDiT6K3F9xDhLBDFKYX0dyN6EicZfIjjEYpFeSKpB OievkP0ZO8fuJdTGl+bEEA2kaSfMf0uIZ8L2I/0kJ/FWFJLB3B5Imk42BBP8WlUJ j3PRr3fesmtJpHTs/892bQMWCJ2TdJR1uAfw8Xdh7NgbuDNuOgUODaExkcJxdKXv qYMZhBdhHp6aTQhR4ZM/T5xmwIGQKbfECL52e2SPt9gj/fisz8dGBd6OWOvxHL94 CGPFTWhoV+IFZiyPftu75lLhS4FNyDa8NtG10JqvFQ8kczAXUjbLw3LpmspML0gB 38OBFysIJyh2ys3ekC9+coMHWnnjZ0KjJkj52icSm5zpIu4CAseu6J+ECIGqEgLo RWYz65tK5tebm3LzPHFnTd+LTqK05mO9SrqUZuprJFxRhBgD/gVM8hT+khTl8mxz Pg== =JvK+ -----END PGP MESSAGE----- |