User:Ched/Arbcom

My page to deal with all things Arbcom:

• Currently on the schedule, the Arbcom 2019 election for the 2020 year.

WP:ACE2019

Considerations

• WP:FRAM
• Eric Corbett Ban
• Ritchie / Prax IBAN

Quick look

Candidates for 2020 term

• 01 Newyorkbrad - Absolute support, no questions asked.
• 02 Casliber - Absolute support, no questions asked.
• 03 Worm That Turned - Absolute support, no questions asked.
• 04 Gadfium - very likely support
• 05 Xeno - strong support
• 06 KrakatoaKatie - statement comes across as condescending and lecturing - will have to research. (613 edits)
• 07 David Fuchs - very likely support (1463 edits)
• 08 Enterprisey - Good tech skills, will have to research
• 09 Maxim - likely strong support
• 10 SoWhy - Absolute support, no questions asked.
• 11 Llywrch - strong support
• 12 Barkeep49 - may be the best "new blood" I could think of - likely support.
• 13 Thryduulf - Have disagreed in past but I believe him to be compassionate, intelligent and also have the best interests in the project at heart. likely support.
• 14 Calidum - Just no.
• 15 Bradv - No
• 16 Beeblebrox - I just don't know.
• 17 Richwales - Will have to look into this
• 18 Kudpung - I'll have to think on this. I like Kudpung a LOT, but disagreements with GW didn't look good.
• 19 DGG - Often has an alternative and different point of view. Well schooled in deletion protocol and standards.
• 20 Hawkeye7 - Need to think on this - getting deadmined is a lot to overcome (4817 edits)
• 21 The Rambling Man - Need to think on this - getting deadmined is a lot to overcome
• 22 Isarra - appears to be a joke nom: note: This is NOT User:Isaacl (who I likely would support)
• 23

withdrawn:

• GeneralPoxter
• Fish and karate - need to research - but likely support if they stay in - Sorry to see the withdraw
• Laser brain - Pretty sure this will get my full support - Sorry to see the withdraw
• Lord Roem

Spec sheet

Candidate	edits in 2019	Thoughts	My Vote
01 * Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	728	2006: Absolute support, no questions asked. They've served in the past, and proven to be level headed, reasonable, and fair. Good sense of humor, even when it's a bit on the dry side at times. Often looked to for advice by other arbs. Institutional memory is a big plus.	Strong support
02 * Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	6980	2006: Absolute support, no questions asked. They've served in the past, and proven to be level headed, reasonable, and fair. Very strong in content creation and high-quality articles. Not huge on displaying humor, but appears to appreciate it when it's innocuous. I've been able to approach them for advice in the past. Institutional memory is a big plus. Also, being from the land down under is a plus.	Strong support
03 * Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	993	2008: Absolute support, no questions asked. Part of the current 2019 AC, which is a negative, but has voiced concerns regarding some of the poorer choices made by the committee. They've served in the past, and proven to be level headed, reasonable, and fair. Goes out of his way to respond to concerns. Good sense of humor. I've been able to approach them for advice when needed.	Strong support
04 * Gadfium (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	4841	2004: Very long term editor and very quiet and polite. Avoids drama and politics. Very dedicated to content. Looking forward to how they respond to being on AC	Support (may go strong support)
05 * Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	1669	2006: Crat, level-headed, compassionate, and really dedicated to our project. He has experience, tact, and a care for the community. Has the ability to be serious, and yet is still able to display an appreciation for humor. I suspect we could be good friends in real life.	Strong support
06 * KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	613	2006: Part of the 2019 AC, which suffered from resignations and poor decision making. Fair content 34%. Statement comes across as combative, and gender-centric. The statement also appears to be condescending and lecturing. Weak in 2019 participation outside Arbcom. Evasive in responses to questions, and often appears to be agenda driven. Not qualities I want in an arb.	Strong oppose
07 * David Fuchs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	1463	2005: Has served before, has a strong background in high-quality content. Sometimes overly strict and doesn't display compassion often. Usually reasonable, and fair. Does not display a sense of humor on wiki, at least not often. I'd like to see a bit more empathy and understanding, but still a solid candidate.	weak Support
08 * Enterprisey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	2012: Fairly new as arbs go. Don't know much about them, appear to be technical in nature which isn't always good when dealing with people. Seems like a very nice person, but doesn't appear to have much experience in many of the areas that Arbs must function in.	Neutral
09 * Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	1486	2007: 'Crat, and a good one. Over 50% in article work. Has always appeared neutral and yet compassionate when dealing with other users. Often appears to be aware, without contributing to drama holes. Desysoped an admin. during a RFAR case, gutsy IAR action, but considered and reasonable given the circumstances. Good answers to questions. Will likely move to support depending on how many of those I have.	Support
10 * SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	3539	2004: I worked with them a fair amount when I first started, they are very knowledgeable in the content deletion areas. Not a huge content creator. Doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve, but is still reasonable and fair. Very willing to help when asked. Institutional memory is a big plus.	Support
11 * Llywrch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	1050	2002: Old school admin and editor. HUGE in content creation (75%). Great sense of humor. Thinks before he types, and is always considered and fair. Institutional memory is a big plus.	Strong support
12 * Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	7038	2005-2018: Interesting candidate. Registered in 2005, but didn't really jump in until early 2018. Has been very involved in many areas, displays intelligence, reason, and compassion. Everything I've seen them comment on appears to be well researched and considered before they post. Appears to grasp the weight of serving on Arbcom. It would mean new blood to the AC, and I think that's a good thing.	Support (may change to strong)
13 * Thryduulf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	4015	2004: This is a tough one for me. I do like Thryduulf, even though we've disagreed on some things. Intelligent and well-spoken, but as mentioned in other guides, has a tendency to hold on to things that are less than complimentary. It's a fault I have myself, but not sure I want it in AC. In the end, his view on the WMF is too far removed from my own beliefs for me to support.	Neutral
14 * Calidum (talk · contribs · count)	1237	2011: No - Not an admin and doesn't have the temperament for it.	Strong oppose
15 * Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	6108	2008: The declined Strictland article doesn't bother me nearly as much as their "not my fault" attitude. Their RfA often came across as an entitlement, and once they got the extra buttons their postings as an arb clerk seemed to take on an air of "respect mah authoritah" that I didn't care for. I'm just not seeing the humility or compassion I need to see in a candidate. Not enough experience, and a bit too much ego for my tastes.	Oppose
16 * Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	4408	2007: Beebs started about a year before me, got his mop shortly after I got mine, and back in those days we seemed to get along pretty well. Somewhere along the line he appears to have become very cynical and jaded about the project though (it happens all too easily). But even his statement has a "I don't want to be here" air to it. I like Beebs, and he does a helluva lot of good for the project, but I don't want to force another stint of Arbcom on him.	Neutral
17 * Richwales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	234	2005: Nobody is required to contribute any certain amount, but 234 edits for the entire year (2019), is simply too much time away to be effective. There have been FAR too many Arbs who simply "phone in their" votes over the years, and I want an arb to actually read the material and investigate the links and situations.	Neutral
18 * Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	4356	2006: I consider Kudpung a wiki-friend, but will need to do the research.	Neutral
19 * DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	17,805	2006: Undecided	Neutral
20 * Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · count)	4824	2005: I like Hawkeye, but there is a stubbornness there. Tremendous asset to the project, but the desysop is just too much to overcome.	Neutral
21 * The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · count)	19,991	2005: Another editor I have a ton of respect for. Great work in DYK, but that was also a problem as well. I admire the workaround he designed, but again, the desysop is more than I can overlook though.	Neutral
22 * Isarra (talk · contribs · count)	137	2010: Actually appears to have a lot of technical skills, but I doubt it's a serious nom. Lack of edits in 2019 means no.	Oppose
Example (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	2	comments	Neutral