Well here we go. My name might be in here somewhere, but the others are the ones to look out for.
| Name | Notes | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Gadfium | Long-term admin (the RFA was brief.... but you only play what's put in front of you). New Zealander, so that's a plus, as I think that usually indicates head screwed on in the right direction for the betterment of humanity in general. Contributor (nearly 64% of edits to mainspace), but not seeing any good or featured material, but more than 130k contributions. A good candidate, and hopefully one who will continue to make Wikipedia what it's about and remember their strong roots by communicating with the community. Winning. | Yes |
| RichWales | Literally never here. Something like 100 edits in the last six months. We already have far too many Arbs absconding for one reason or another, we don't want to start with this. Too many infoboxes on the user page, but good to see a Canadian (former American) there. Sadly nothing else to say here. | Nope |
| Worm That Turned | Nearly the only Arb left on the "committee" that I would inherently trust. Demonstrates a really keen sense of right vs wrong without being judgemental or churlish, and IMPORTANTLY engages with the community, including those involved in cases, in as open and honest a manner as the role befits. A shining light in a dearth of despair and gloom that Arbcom has provided us for the last few years. Everything else (e.g. edits, GAs, FAs etc) not relevant for this candidate for me. Golden ticket. | Yes |
| Fish and karate | Someone who opens with "To be clear, I do not particularly want to be on the Arbitration Committee" should not be seeking to be on the Arbitration Committee, no matter how noble a cause they believe they are pursuing. A good guy and would almost certainly get my support as a dedicated Wikipedian. Practically no input for a nine-year-period so doubts over the ability to dedicate the time required, especially in light of the clarification provided in the nomination statement. So, sorry, no, I won't be supporting someone who doesn't really want to the job. | Nope |
| Hawkeye7 | Clearly a very dedicated content contributor and, as such, the kind of person we need to be part of Arbcom to remind them what the purpose of Wikipedia is from time to time. Unfortunately I find that the lack of transparency in the nomination statement relating to their de-sysopping and subsequent (and worsening) fails in two further RFAs to be somewhat misleading and I'm not sure I would trust someone who wasn't prepared to put it all out there when preparing their candidacy. Moreover, it's clear from the strength of feeling on the second of the two failed RFAs that rather than the trust being regained over time in the candidate, it appears to have become much worse, thus leading me to consider that the candidate is not learning from mistakes or taking community feedback seriousl. | Nope |
| Casliber | Decent candidate. True commitment to the purpose of the project (i.e. content, not bureaucracy) and clearly able to handle conflict resolution. As close to a golden ticket as I could get, but I've already awarded that, so it's just a good old-fashioned "yes" instead. | Yes |
| Lord Roem | A good egg, but sadly far from experienced across the gamut of Wikipedia for me. Averaging about 1 mainspace edit per day since 2010, and long periods of complete absence means I have limited confidence that this candidate (a) is content-centric and (b) will be around for the long-haul. We need both in our Arbs at this time, and I'm afraid this candidate has neither. And I'm afraid that being a clerk really means literally nothing, just blindly following instruction is not something I would consider good experience for the role of Arb. | Nope |
| Barkeep49 | I've had some very favourable encounters with this editor. The only thing that I find troubling in this specific application for Arbcomship is the relative lack of experience. With only really two years at Wikipedia, and with only a third of that time spent editing the mainspace, I'd find it hard to support this time round but would look very favourably on a run in a year or so. | Weak nope |
| Bradv | Somewhat limited contribution to the content of the encyclopedia, at just around 2 edits to the mainspace per day, so I'm not seeing any clear connection to the editing community. Also, being an Arbcom clerk (i.e. blindly following what one is told to do by the Arbs) is most definitely not a qualifying mark for Arbcom itself. Not this time. | Nope |
| Thryduulf | Another editor with which I've had many, many generally favourable encounters. Talks a lot of sense, but less than quarter of their contributions is to the content of the encyclopedia. If that could be improved upon, I'd certainly consider them in the future. Having read some of their responses to the questions given, I'm minded to move to support. Interesting stuff. | Yes |
| Laser brain | Decent contributor and someone I've engaged with numerous times over the years and about whom I can remember very little to be concerned about. Mildly troubled by the recurring theme of no edits in (my) summer for several years in succession, although last year this wasn't the case – we absolutely cannot be voting in Arbs who can't commit the required time to the work, else we'll just end up in the same mire we're in now with a handful of exhausted individuals barely functioning. But as long as that's not an issue now, I'm happy to support this one. | Yes |
| Xeno | Although an extended period of absence from 2012 to September this year (with a tiny glitch in June 2017), I am tempted to allow some latitude here as I have had very favourable interactions with this contributor. I sincerely hope that they will be able to dedicate the time required to the role, contrary to the appearance of their contributions over the last couple of years, so I'm willing to offer a weak support, qualified to full support contingent on some assurance that a commitment (as much as possible) can be given to support Arbcom actively during their tenure. | Yes |
| Isarra | While I'm all for bringing some levity to proceedings, this is a step too far for me. No-one needs to suck up to the community, but this will not end favourably as too many of the community will see this as trite and somehow "disrepectful" to the process... | Nope |
| KrakatoaKatie | Current Arb, in no sense covered in any kind of glory from the events of 2019. Placing heavy emphasis on the gender bias rather than their own ability to serve the role. Tried, failed: not good enough. | Nope |
| Newyorkbrad | Probably the most gifted Arb we've ever had. I've probably had too many run-ins to give an objective view but I'll try. A decent, open, intelligent contributor. Level-headed, qualified and worth listening to about 99% of the time. Struggling to find a good reason to oppose. | Yes |
| TRM | Bad behaviour count: significant, confrontations are notable enough to be discussed and I'm happy to discuss each and every one of them. I'm a former administrator and bureaucrat, both of which I resigned, in cloudy circumstances. I'm also a former OTRS volunteer (no complaints there!). And a former Oversighter and Checkuser on Simple English Wikipedia (my membership elapsed due to lack of interest in that project rather than the tools being removed). I've been blocked a few times, but as far as I know have never been accused or found guilty of abusing any tools I've been given. I'm subject to a couple of Arbitration Committee enforcements, so I know exactly how it feels to be on both sides of the coin. Wikipedia is a content-based project for our readers. It is not, nor should it ever become, a cock-waving competition where Arb-wannabes blow out about how great we see no real contribution to the global knowledge. People trying to govern a content-based project need to understand how to build that content.... Content: 21 FAs, 111 FLs, more than 150 GAs, 2 FTs. I spend too much time trying to ensure Wikipedia doesn't look terribly shit for our readers. Identified myself to WMF a while ago. No other accounts beyond User:The Rambling Man on tour. | Goes without saying... |
| David Fuchs | Struggle to find anything I object to with this candidate. A dedication to the mainspace. Only issue the lack of contributions in general to the project. Three or four edits a day since 2012 although a substantial ramp-up this year. No complaints from me at all. | Yes |
| Beeblebrox | Limited input to the mainspace, dwarfed by contributions to user talk and the Wikipedia namespace. A former Arb who didn't seem to make a huge mess of things. | Weak nope |
| Maxim | Before 2019, four years of practically no input to the project. But a safe bet here, and I find nothing major to be concerned about. | Yes |
| SoWhy | No issues here. Three years of limited activity followed (in the last three years) with extensive contributions, including reasonable presence in the mainspace. | Yes |
| Kudpung | Here for the chats and process, not convinced about the commitment to the whole purpose of the project, namely to create content for our readers. | Nope |
| DGG | Plenty of time as an Arb, and a reasonable one in general, but time for fresh thinking, especially given the stagnation and desperate times of the past few committees. | Nope |
| Enterprisey | Nomination was added after closure time so the candidate can't even make that deadline, I can't trust them to do anything of substance. | Nope |