User:MJL/Electoral Guide/2020

Hello again! My name is MJL. I am a user who likes politics and stuff, so yeah..

See my previous guide for more information.

Candidates

Key

My term	Other guides
Complete support	Golden ticket
Support	Support
Mostly positive	Weak support
Moral support	-
Mixed	Neutral
Roasted	-
Some negative	Weak oppose
Oppose	Oppose
Protest oppose	Strong oppose

Bradv

• Bradv (talk · contribs · logs)

It would seem that Bradv has survived a year on Arbcom and wants to have another go at it. He has been a drafting arbitrator on Portals, Motorsports, and Medicine.

For those who aren't aware, Bradv successfully ran previously in 2019. My previous verdict on him was "Mostly positive".

Obviously, circumstances are very different nowadays (in more ways than one). Critically, for our purposes, Bradv has a record to run on now. How has he faired in that regard? Well, Bradv has a lot to brag about here. In 2019, he ran on increased communication and more transparency, and it is pretty clear that was what we got with him.

Back in April, when dealing with the Bbb23 retirement controversy, Bradv released a part of the relevant email to give the community more context to what was happening. He answered several questions regarding the contentious Medicine case. Both show pretty exemplary work to do the things he set out to do.

If I had to find a criticism, it would certainly be the handling of the Lightbreather July 2020 motion. It just rubs me the wrong way, and I could have expected much better there. Though, that clearly was not an individual failing on the part of Bradv, so I don't see a reason to hold it against him. At the very least, he answered my question on this topic with a high degree of satisfaction.

There was a lot of good we saw with Bradv, and I think returning him to the committee will be an easy net-positive outcome for this election.

Verdict: Support.

Primefac

• Primefac (talk · contribs · logs)

A whole five days after Bradv's announcement, we finally get a second person to run for Arbcom. I am just surprised the next person is such a knockout non-incumbent candidate.

If you have ever been to participated in WP:TfD, then you will recognise Primefac. They are pretty much a fixture at that deletion venue, and Primefac is consistently impressive in that regard. It certainly is easy to forget that they are also an oversighter because of how prominent Primefac is contributing to TfD, RFBOT, and WP:RFA (Primefac is also a 'crat). Then again, oversight is (by design) not a very prominent and flashy user right.

So why run? Well, according to Primefac, their skills (the ability to comb through the noise of a dispute, etc.) would considerably transfer over well to Arbcom. Secondly, the other inspiration to run was the Arbcom anti-harassment RFC. Primefac involved themself in closing that RFC and got to hear from users first hand what they wanted from Arbcom. If you ask me, that is not a bad reason to run.

There is a bit more in Primefac's statement about bridging the gap between enwiki and the WMF. However, I think it does not get into specifics sadly (such as suggesting what role Primefac sees for T&S, etc.).

Verdict: Mostly positive.

Scottywong

• Scottywong (talk · contribs · logs)

This is going to sound stupid considering I know a few of the other candidates rather well, but I do not think I am capable of writing a good review for Scottywong's candidate statement. It has nothing to do with Scottywong personally at all, though. I just do not want to read too much into some portions of his statement since I am afraid I might misinterpret it for whatever reason.

The man is an enigma to me.

Verdict: Mostly positive.

Maxim

• Maxim (talk · contribs · logs)

I am going to high-jack Maxim's review for a quick second just to say that I am pretty shocked to see how few incumbents ran for re-election. It pretty much just is Maxim and and Bradv. Wow.

Okay, so to be completely and utterly truthful here, Maxim does not stand out well in a crowd. Quite the opposite really. Maxim is a person of few words, and you can see what I mean at the proposed decision for Medicine (a decision that Maxim was a drafter on). Go to that page and type CTRL + F. You will see practically none of Maxim's votes come with an explanation.

So that leaves me sitting here, wondering how I should review a user who I know does the job.. (Maxim is pretty active tbh) but does have the same level of personality that I see in the other candidates. I keep having to ask myself what insight they are set to bring to the table, but the answer is I just have no clue.

I will update the guide after asking Maxim a question.

Update: I completely forgot about this. This is why I normally do not include an "interactive" portion with the candidates. I just review their statements and move on.

Maxim gave a good reply, so yeah. Good stuff.

Verdict: Mostly positive.

BDD

• BDD (talk · contribs · logs)

BDD is great and everyone should go to his talk page and share their favorite pictures of flowers just as I have done. Seriously, go do it. BDD is a national treasure, and he needs to be reminded of that absolute fact.

This user ran because we did not have a lot of good candidates at the time. We needed at least seven, and most of the current candidates waited until the last minute to announce their candidacies. BDD, being the absolute saint he is, volunteered himself for the back breaking work of Arbcom for two full years since it seemed no one else was gonna. Of course, BDD does not really have a lot of the experience one would look for in a candidate for arbcom (unless BDD sees a sudden upcoming influx of redirect-related drama).

Therefore, I am going to have to decline to give my support and would encourage BDD to withdraw now that we have 11 other candidates to fill the 7 open slots. BDD is still national treasure, though, and anyone who has spent more than a day at WP:RFD will know that.

Verdict: Moral support.

Barkeep49

• Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · logs)

Just watch Barkeep49 get elected with flying colors this year. He is still one of the most insightful (and committed) users on this project, and it seems that people around here are finally waking up to that fact. Now, I normally keep these reviews formal, but I just can't hide how happy I am for Barkeep right now.

My dude has an entire campaign platform page; which is such a major flex if we're being honest. All the major issues are covered there, so single-issue voters already know what they are going to get with a Barkeep as arbitrator. This user is simply brilliant.

You seriously can't go wrong with Barkeep49. Have you not seen him at WT:GAN? What about RFA? How about AFC? If not, you might live under a rock. He is literally everywhere on this project, and it's always something positive, too. Like some of us get out of bed and make our mediocre contributions here or there, but Barkeep gets up and makes 20 GAs. Unstoppable, I tell you.

If this community makes the same mistake of not electing Barkeep49 like they did last year, then my next guide will just be an entire list of reasons to vote for Barkeep49 in that election.

Verdict: Complete support.

TonyBallioni

• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · logs)

I recently learned that TonyBallioni has a life outside of Wikipedia. That was news to me, and I figured it would be news to anyone who reads this. Okay, on with the review.

If Tony had asked me whether he should run for Arbcom this year or not, my answer would have been a thoughtful (yet firm) no. I mean, Tony is in a pretty good position right now all things considered. With Bbb23 gone, he is the lead trainer of new Checkusers. Tony has the respect of his peers on the CU team, and he has a pretty decent working relationship with Arbcom. Yeah, TonyBallioni is a pretty controversial figure, but it is hard to doubt that his heart is in the right place (even if said heart is protected by a steel chassis covered in barbed wire).

Having spoken to Tony before, he believes one of the worst types of users on this project are the civil POV-pushers. I passionately disagree with that assertion, but at times I understand where that logic comes from.

Either way, Tony has a lot of in depth experience with the Checkuser tool and the relevant policies there (even across wikis). He is generally the one to take on the more controversial checks, which is going to be some pretty critical experience for a potential arbitrator to have.

Verdict: Support.

L235

• L235 (talk · contribs · logs)

Kevin (AKA L235) is an obviously qualified candidate having been a clerk for arbcom over the last 5 years. That being the case, in his candidate statement, he has decievely went over what he feels are the two distinct functions of Arbcom: conduct dispute resolution and everything else. Regarding the first category, Kevin pledges to bring a level head, an open mind, and a big heart (paraphrasing of course). To be honest, that is already some solid reasons to vote for this candidate.

However, L235's true talents are on display in his explanation of "everything else" aspect of Arbcom. This second category is the real sticky widget of Wikipedia policy making since it pretty much covers everything from Checkuser block appeals, discretionary sanctions, dealing with undisclosed paid editing, and a whole array of other things. It is the discretionary sanctions part of it all that seem to gum up most of the works; they are quite well known to be unevenly applied and confusing. Kevin's candidacy rests on fixing that to try and bring some much needed standardisation and clarity for the community.

Good stuff if you ask me, and Kevin's ability to AGF makes for an excellent counterbalance to TonyB's general grumpiness.

Verdict: Support.

Hawkeye7

• Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · logs)

Oh, Hawkeye7... It is so nice to see them come back because they will always have my heart. I previously gave Hawkeye a moral support verdict back in 2019, but who knows with the year 2020.

Non-Admin candidacies are always a long shot bid for Arbcom. Last year, I made a point of saying that someone like Hawkeye might never be able to pass an RFA might be able to get through WP:ACE, but I think that was an overly optimistic statement for me to make. Now, I have come around to the conventional view that if the community is not able to trust you with the administrative toolkit, then it is doubtful they will give you the power to oversee the people they do trust.

We have the results for results for 2019's election, and Hawkeye was fourth-to-last overall and the third most opposed candidate. With Barkeep49, it was pretty close and most people even said they would change to support after a year, but that cannot really be stated for Hawkeye7 here. It was not a case of "We don't know you," but it really was a case of "We know you and don't like you." Something like is extremely hard to overcome.

Credit where it is due though, Hawkeye at least was willing to acknowledge the thing they were not willing to make clear last time (ie. why they were desysopped by Arbcom). That certainly is at least some improvement, but I am not really on-board with the TRM-inspired campaign platform of "I am a content creator who can understands what it is like to be sanctioned Arbcom." Just apologise and move on from it, but do not try to spin a sanction into something even remotely positive.

I find myself torn here because I really like Hawkeye7 as a valuable contributor to this project, but I do not want to encourage this campaign which is pretty much doomed to fail again.

Verdict: Mixed.

CaptainEek

• CaptainEek (talk · contribs · logs)

I seriously cannot understate how out-of-nowhere this run from CaptainEek was for me.

Full disclosure: I was a hardcore advocate for their RFA. Funnily enough, Eek's noms there were Bradv and Barkeep49, so it is rather interesting to now see them all running in the same class of seats for Arbcom. Maybe this is as much of a surprise for them as it was for me.

Okay, so this is another one of those BDD-type runs where, because everyone waited until the last minute to announce, no one really knew how many candidates there actually were going to be. Within that vacuum, there appeared CaptainEek ready and willing to serve. Oddly enough, they ended up one of the last candidates to announce this time around.

It is pretty easy to find elements from other candidate statements in CaptainEek's announcement. There is the same dedication to transparency mentioned by Bradv, DS-reform championed by Kevin, etc. That is understandable since these are pretty well known problems which need solving. However, it certainly is worth noting that they feel ArbCom has had a quiet year while TonyB felt it was more active than [was] necessary. Quite the contrast there.

Among the candidates, Eek stands out as one of the only non-Male Wikipedian to run this year as well as being one of the most inexperienced. At least, CaptainEek deserves further looking into.

Verdict: Complete Moral Support.

Guerillero

• Guerillero (talk · contribs · logs)

Short and sweet. That is nice for reviewing the statement, but it does hurt Guerillo with voters who are not already familiar with them.

Guerillero saw the lack of candidates and decided to pitch in. They also want to update discretionary sanctions system, so there is that. Okay, I know I making it sound like Guerrillero does not have to offer, so let me fix that.

Guerillero, unlike all of the non-incumbent candidates in the running right now, actually has had previous experience on the committee. Not to mention, they have an abundance of experience actually forcing said sanctions as a regular WP:AE admin and arb clerk. Therefore, if anyone is in a position to fix DS, then certainly Guerillo would be as the first author of WP:ECP.

Overall, a lot of good stuff. The only thing holding me back from giving a stronger endorsement is that Guerillo is in a good position to help out the DS reform effort already as a clerk. I suppose the same thing can be said about Kevin though, so maybe I am just splitting hairs there.

Verdict: Support.

SMcCandlish

• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · logs)

Here we have a candidate (and this feels terrible for me to say this) but really nothing to offer voters this time around except a lot of words. Similar to Barkeep49, SMcCandlish has a campaign user page for further reading. The key difference between the two is that this is not a campaign platform, it is an extended stump speech with more reasons to vote for him.

My longstanding belief is that editors with active editing restrictions should never run for Arbcom. As SMcCandlish himself has pointed out in the aforementioned campaign page, his early experience on the project was controversial to say the least. Back in 2013, SMcCandlish was placed under civility restrictions, a sanction as far as I can tell is still active. His inability to play nice with other contributors has caused a lot of disruption as recently as May 2019. That is not a good look for a potential member of Arbcom.

Oh, and yes, the restrictions were bundled with a warning for being too wordy. SMcCandlish seems to have not made a lot of progress on that front.

Verdict: Oppose.