 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
| Username | Y/N/M | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Bradv (talk · contribs) | M | Nothing terrifically bad springs to mine here, yet nothing overwhelmingly great, certainly not from the "building the encyclopedia" perspective: no indication of any featured material. There's obviously a wish to maintain the position in the governance of Wikipedia following the one-year Arbcom term just passed, but it was very much the "calm after the storm" this year, so not really proven much. More inclined to Y than N, and being Canadian only helps support that, as does an element of continuity, and also (currently) reasonably active but I would like to see more of that activity on the actual encyclopedia. |
| Primefac (talk · contribs) | M | Like Bradv, no strong feelings either way, but what I would find a little bit worrying is the lack of mainspace contributions which are simply maintenance or AWB edits to fix up template issues. I imagine it would be helpful to have a logical mind on the committee and I can certainly attest that Primefac would provide that, but a distinct lack of featured material, and no strong evidence that I can see of hugely successful negotiation, it's a maybe for me this time round. |
| Scottywong (talk · contribs) | N | Another technically inclined candidate with a paucity of "building the encyclopedia" lately, rather than just "maintaining" it. Last 250 mainspace edits date back to September, and 2/3 of those are either Twinkle or XFDcloser edits. No featured material found, not really sure this candidate has a strong connection with the community building the content, but nothing stands out against them, so it's another "sit on the fence" from me. Since I wrote this, things have gone south with this candidate going pretty much full tilt on another website and is demonstrating a complete lack of control. Strong oppose now. |
| Maxim (talk · contribs) | N | I'm afraid taking 18 months to make 250 mainspace edits and more than 200 of them being rolling back someone else's edit, I'm certainly not convinced this candidate is up to speed on how the editing community are working right now, so it's thanks for the admin/'crat/Arb etc but not for me this year. |
| BDD (talk · contribs) | N | This is an unfortunate decline from me. I don't really know BDD at all but once again, there's a paucity of mainspace edits, four months for the last 250, around half of which focused on redirects. I really have no ax(e) to grind on this, but unless I can be convinced that candidates such as BDD are fully commensurate with how the editing community are building articles, and how that generates conflict, I can't support this time. |
| Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) | Y | I've encountered this candidate a number of times around the place, both in GA land and FL land, and also helping out with troublesome editors. This is a no-brainer for me, I fully support this candidate. |
| TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) | Y | Another candidate with whom I can simply only remember favourable encounters. Works on featured material, and for me has been nothing other than a pleasure to work with. Has a clue on how to build an encyclopedia, tackles important and interesting topics, and has a wiki-philosophy on content growth that I would echo, especially in terms of growing the content. |
| L235 (talk · contribs) | Y | A good example of someone who has done the right work under the hood. I've had a fair few interactions with Kevin during my regular trips to Arbcom (been a while, mind you!) and I have never envied the work he's done as a clerk, and more importantly, never seen him get emotionally overwhelmed by what is a thankless task. I think he's ready to go now, and with the experience he has, I see this as a no-brainer. |
| Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) | N | I've bumped into Hawkeye hundreds of times and find him to be a good chap. His featured and good content work is prolific and should be recognised, but unfortunately I don't feel the temperament is there for Arbcom. There's a clear tick in the "building content" box, an A+ in fact, but I would be worried about how he would deal with emotive topics. Sorry, it's nothing personal, just a feeling. |
| CaptainEek (talk · contribs) | M | Another candidate with whom I am not personally very familiar. A small amount of featured material there, and some interactions with editors on some controversial topics stand them in good stead, and brilliant to see work going on in peer reviews and adoption, so this is an incline towards Y but with lack of personal interaction, it's currently a maybe. |
| Guerillero (talk · contribs) | M | An experienced candidate, but not Arbcom for me this time round. I worry when I see it taking months to wrack up a couple of hundred edits, that individuals simply aren't at the nub of the most recent "big issues". Being elected would only serve to increase this distance, so until I see some pick-up on edits, especially in the mainspace, |
| SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) | Y | Now I don't wish to scupper any chances SMcCandlish has, but of all this year's candidates, he is the one that demonstrates the most attention to the encyclopedia from our readers' perspective. We've had a fair share of interactions over the years and I respect just about everything he has ever written. The only fly in the ointment which might lean towards M is the verbosity... Sometimes I think he can become a little too carried away with engorged responses, and the last thing Arbcom needs is bloated case notes, but he knows this (at least he knows I think this) already so I believe I can trust him to carry the role with aplomb, bringing the outside world of really creating good content into the heart of the committee which has truly lacked that quality over the last few years. |