Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2019 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 04:21 (UTC), Sunday, 2 June 2024 (Purge)

  • Thank you for participating in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
  • You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

During the 2012 Arbitration Committee Election Request for comment, it was decided by consensus that a three-member Electoral Commission would be created to address issues arising during the Arbitration Committee elections. This decision was reaffirmed in subsequent years and the existence of the Commission is now part of the standard procedure for the annual elections. The Electoral Commission is reconstituted each year for purposes of that year's election.

Editors wishing to volunteer as a Commissioner for 2019 should create a new subsection on this RfC. All editors are encouraged to comment on the suitability of the volunteers for this role. Three volunteers with the strongest support, determined by consensus based upon comments posted until one week after the close of nominations, will be chosen as Commissioners. Any remaining applicants who have consensus support but are not in the top three will be designated as reserve Commissioners, to be called upon if one of the Commissioners is unable to serve. If the consensus is not readily apparent, one or more bureaucrats will help close the discussion.

The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2019 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election.

In addition, while the Electoral Commission is not responsible for logistics of the election, the Commissioners should also help ensure that preparations for the election—such as setting up the relevant pages, posting notices of the election in the appropriate places, and asking the Office to configure the SecurePoll voting interface—move forward in a timely fashion.

Commissioners and reserve members are not eligible for election to the Arbitration Committee during this year's election. Commissioners must be able and willing to satisfy the requirements of the access to nonpublic information policy.

Per the consensus developed in previous requests for comment, the electoral commission timetable is as follows:

  • Nominations: Saturday 00:00, 5 October – Friday 23:59, 11 October (7 days)
  • Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 12 October – Friday 23:59, 18 October (7 days)
  • Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 25 October

Volunteers to serve on the electoral commission[edit]

Thank you to all of the commission candidates for volunteering for these positions. All 5 candidates have recieved sufficicent support, though the commission is limited to three active members per the community RfC. This year's electoral commission will consist of:

Having recieved sufficient support the following reserve commissioners are apointed and will be automatically promoted to active in the event of a vacancy:

All commissioners and reservists are de facto coordinators, along with other community members that have volunteered to assist. As all have already completed the WMF NDA, this is immediately effective. Best of luck for a smooth election process this year. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vanamonde93[edit]

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I have been an active editor for a little over six years, and an administrator for just over three. I have held Oversight permissions since late 2018. I have done a fair amount of content work, some of it in difficult areas. I have had to navigate a number of complicated and unpleasant discussions as an administrator and as an editor; I think I can deal fairly with any conflicts that arise during the election process. As an oversighter I already meet the criteria for access to non-public data. I do not plan on running for ARBCOM in this election. I am putting myself forward not because I expect to particularly enjoy this task; I do not; but someone needs to. If four or more administrators whose judgement I trust nominate themselves, I intend to withdraw from consideration. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Vanamonde93[edit]

  • My interactions with Vanamonde in their role as an oversighter have given me great faith in their ability to handle and resolve complex disputes. Vanamonde has shown a great ability to apply the spirit of our policies to make sure that strict adherence to rules does not constrain our ability to make informed decisions as a community. In facilitating the election, I believe these qualities would be put to great use to both resolve and prevent problems in the coming months. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very tough; very fair. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most strongest OPPOSE possible, I can't comment more since people will harass me, and admins block me, as they do, but this is one of the worse slates of candidates I've seen in years. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing but trust in this candidate, must be one of the best. Possibly the finest editor we have, although that may be mildly hyperbolic. And, yes: they should stand for the committe itself. But they might be too sensible to do so  :) And, User:Sir Joseph, please take your trolling to the talk page. Condemning a candidate per the entire tranche is wholly otiose. ——SerialNumber54129 09:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeOne of the authoritarian figure which I've seen in arbitration committee administration. He solved many complex disputes but still he has authoritarian command over many matters and not cooperative enough. Oversee committee needs friendly people who don't bite newcomers and can help. -- Harshil want to talk? 17:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harshil169: Vanamonde93 has never been an arbitrator and this is not the committee election. This is the election for commissioners who will oversee the committee election. The election for the committee itself will open in a few weeks. Did you mean to write something else? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still my point stands same. Strike out wrong text and replacing with relevant. Point is he is authoritarian. — Harshil want to talk? 17:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was once his critic but have changed my mind to support him after seeing his good work and interactions. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing Vanamonde93[edit]

  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. El_C 04:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nizil (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lepricavark (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Doug Weller talk 06:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Carrite (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. spryde | talk 12:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~mitch~ (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. – Kosack (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Rschen7754 19:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. – bradv🍁 19:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. –Davey2010Talk 19:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. stwalkerster (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. FASTILY 23:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. SQLQuery me! 23:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Stormy clouds (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Seren_Dept 03:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Mkdw talk 03:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. — Frood (talk!) 03:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. starship.paint (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. - GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Serial Number 54129 talk 10:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. With regrets that I don't have the choice to vote for you this ACE .... ∯WBGconverse 09:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  41. — Ched (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. qedk (t 桜 c) 16:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. – Levivich 17:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Chetsford (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. SusunW (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Mz7 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Britishfinance (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. CThomas3 (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. SoWhy 10:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. GoldenRing (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. What Serial Number 54129 said. SITH (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. JohnThorne (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Sure. But what a waste. Another one who should be on the arbcom ballot. --regentspark (comment) 01:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Fish+Karate 08:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Euryalus (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Happy days, LindsayHello 11:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. ~  Amory (u • t • c) 18:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. All of the volunteers are respected and qualified, but I'll only choose three to support. —DoRD (talk)​ 02:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Loopy30 (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Taewangkorea (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Choosing my top three signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Nblund talk 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. commented above.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  76. valereee (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyberpower678[edit]

Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Hi everyone. I’ll keep it short and sweet. As a member of the commission last year, I’m offering to serve again. I have learned a lot since I served last year and, naturally, I also meet the requirements for access to non-public data. I have no intentions of ever running for ArbCom, and though some minor mistakes were made last year, I’m willing to learn from them and do it better the next go around, if the community will have me.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 06:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Cyberpower678[edit]

Cyberpower678 What are some examples of things you learned? My memory is foggy as to what the minor mistakes were (or perhaps I'm just clouded by the big incident) so I'd be curious to hear what you'd do differently. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amorymeltzer, first and foremost, I will make sure the voting server is functional before the vote opens. Last year an assumption resulted in voting being delayed one day. A way to avoid that would be to open a test vote with the same setup that the actual vote will be using and to ensure everything works as expected 24 hours prior to the vote. This will give devs 24 hours advance notice to resolve technical issues without pressure or stress. The second notable mistake was sending out mass messages without the updated dates due to the delay. To fix this I have already created a mass message notice that uses a template to produce the dates automatically so this issue can be avoided. {{ACEMM}} —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing Cyberpower678[edit]

  1. Carrite (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. spryde | talk 12:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rschen7754 19:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FASTILY 23:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I worked with Cyberpower678 last year on the Electoral Commission, and he was easy to work with, helpful, and knowledgeable. SQLQuery me! 23:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Frood (talk!) 03:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. - based on SQL's endorsement. starship.paint (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. - GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  14. — Ched (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Am not aware of any issues from last year....so sure, why not? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Schazjmd (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I think it would be helpful to carry over some of the institutional knowledge of this role by adding someone who has been in this role before, especially since very little of it seems to be written down. Mz7 (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. CThomas3 (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. SoWhy 10:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Lepricavark (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. SITH (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Britishfinance (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. per Mz7. Cyberpower678 has consistently demonstrated that they can be trusted. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. sure. --regentspark (comment) 01:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Fish+Karate 08:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Euryalus (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. ~  Amory (u • t • c) 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. wumbolo ^^^ 12:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. There probably is something for institutional knowledge, and I liked the answer to the question Nosebagbear (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Loopy30 (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Chetsford (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Iffy★Chat -- 18:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Deryck C. 11:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. --Pudeo (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni[edit]

TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Hi all, I’m Tony. For those who don’t know me, I’m currently a sysop, CheckUser and Oversighter. I’m willing to help out this year as an election commissioner. I’m volunteering for the position because I strongly believe in the importance of a free and fair process to the election, and I am willing to help see that through if the community wants. I also have a fair amount of interaction with stewards, which I think would be useful if as scrutineers they run into any issues. I have no plan or desire to run for ArbCom, and I’ve already signed the NDA as a CU/OS. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about TonyBallioni[edit]

  • Most strongest OPPOSE possible, I can't comment more since people will harass me, and admins block me, as they do, but this is one of the worse slates of candidates I've seen in years, and TB is top of that list, he should not be in charge of selecting who will be on ARBCOM. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Vanamonde93 and I are the people behind your recent community imposed topic ban. I assure you neither he nor I want to select who gets to be on ArbCom nor are we running for that job. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I think you're unsuited for the job, and unsuited for any job that requires special permissions, such as sysop, CheckUser and Oversighter. Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you. My issue with you is that you should not be in a position of power. Simple as that. I'm not going to go on and explain it, because I don't need to get harassed and I don't think this is the place. I just don't want you to get selected to this commission without someone voicing disapproval. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that Sir Joseph was recently topic banned from "antisemitism and Holocaust denial, broadly construed." Repercussions from this comment are being discussed at AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh - One of the most heavy-handed, authoritarian and bureaucratic personalities I've seen; the sole silver lining of this nomination is of his' not running for the Committee. ∯WBGconverse 07:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I disagree with the details of why, I agree about the silver lining. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with both parts of WBG's comment. Funny thing is, I thing that makes him perfect. Endorsing below.Hydromania (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Booooo ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do people actually think Tony is going to misbehave in this role, or are they just using this as an opportunity to take free shots at him? Lepricavark (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am categorically uncomfortable with this candidate, mainly because of this: [1]. Naivete and authority are not good combinations. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, too often I came across substandard or even sloppy work from him. I have no guarantee that he will do good in a high sensitive environment. The Banner talk 18:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO one of our best admins. Would have been happier to see him run for the committee. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing TonyBallioni[edit]

  1. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Kosack (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. El_C 16:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. We sometimes have very differing opinions and viewpoints but I highly respect Tony.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Rschen7754 19:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. SQLQuery me! 19:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. – bradv🍁 19:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. –Davey2010Talk 19:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Nardog (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. stwalkerster (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. FASTILY 23:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Not a jerk, has a clue —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Stormy clouds (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Reasonable, trustworthy, and has my respect, strong endorse. creffett (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Sound and sensible. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  28. Mkdw talk 03:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. — Frood (talk!) 03:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. - GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. - SharabSalam (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  34. Definitely. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Per User:Sir Joseph. ——SerialNumber54129 12:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. — Ched (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. qedk (t 桜 c) 16:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Britishfinance (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. WMSR (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Absolutely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. CThomas3 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Where is the line to sign and give control of the election to this over-addicted over-caring Wikimedian? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. SoWhy 10:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. spryde | talk 12:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Lepricavark (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Duh... SITH (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose too addicted to Wikipedia. [Humor] OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Hydromania (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. JohnThorne (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Taewangkorea (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Volunteer Marek 02:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Fish+Karate 08:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Euryalus (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. FitIndia Talk Mail 06:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. LakesideMinersMy Talk Page 14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Opposition from a disruptive editor is a big plus. I do not agree with Tony 100% of the time, but 90%+ is good enough for me. He has integrity. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. No concerns. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. I’d be fine with any of the 5, but I’ll pick my 3 preferences. -Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Choosing my top three signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Geoff | Who, me? 22:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Maproom (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  80. per my comment above--DBigXrayᗙ 08:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  81. valereee (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  82. MarioGom (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Echo #53 above. No worries from me.   Aloha27  talk  12:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Gimubrc (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Primefac[edit]

Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I'll just come out and say it, I enjoy things that others find tedious like making lists, collating data, and the like. I had never really thought about running for this position before this year due to my relative lack of interaction with ArbCom or its members (other than knowing them and being internet friends with a few), but their role (and ArbCom's importance) have certainly come more to light in the last few months and I'd like to help out with these elections. As a 'crat, semi-regular RFC closer, and semi-unofficial AFC coordinator I deal with a lot of contentious discussions and decisions and am happy to deal with more. I meet the NDA requirements through my work as a member of the oversight team. Since everyone else seems to be saying it, I do not plan on running for ArbCom this year (possibly ever). Primefac (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Primefac[edit]

  1. Go For It Primefac. If anyone ever accuses you of hat collecting (it'll probably be me, so feel free to remind me of this discussion), then this has to be so small a hat...really just a handkerchief at most. You know, with knots tied in the corners. For a hot day. What class of hat is this. Anyway, best of luck! ——SerialNumber54129 09:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A hat collector? What does it mean? I tried WP:HAT but I doubt that's it. flowing dreams (talk page) 12:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, there is a WP:HAT at WP:Hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Hat collecting. ​ Primefac (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I should switch to desktop mode or I miss important stuff. flowing dreams (talk page) 13:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A hat? All I got was a lousy t-shirt. Jonathunder (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing Primefac[edit]

  1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mkdw talk 03:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – bradv🍁 03:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. El_C 03:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Frood (talk!) 03:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. starship.paint (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. - GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Holy shit, yes please. Primefac is very wise, patient, and smart. SQLQuery me! 06:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FASTILY 07:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. IMHO, the most deserving of the lot ... ∯WBGconverse 09:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Serial Number 54129 talk 10:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. –Davey2010Talk 11:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  19. — Ched (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. stwalkerster (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. qedk (t 桜 c) 16:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. It's just a temporary fez, really, not a permanent hat. – Levivich 17:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Mz7 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Britishfinance (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Sure, why not? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. ~mitch~ (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. WMSR (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Primefac adding this tiny handkerchief hat to the rack ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. You want more paperwork you say? If it's the case come fill out all my important government forms for me ;) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SoWhy 10:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. GoldenRing (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. spryde | talk 12:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Lepricavark (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Yep, support. SITH (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. JohnThorne (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Taewangkorea (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Volunteer Marek 02:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Fish+Karate 08:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Euryalus (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Happy days, LindsayHello 11:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Mahveotm (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55.  Spintendo  06:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Clearly ~  Amory (u • t • c) 18:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  59. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. All of the volunteers are respected and qualified, but I'll only choose three to support. —DoRD (talk)​ 02:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. A little frightening, but yes. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Had me at making lists & collating data Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Iffy★Chat -- 18:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68.   Aloha27  talk  13:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Yes! CBS527Talk 14:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Making a list, checking it twice... Jonathunder (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Yes. Csgir (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  72. No concerns. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I’d be fine with any of the 5, but I’ll pick my 3 preferences. -Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. I've had positive interactions with Primefac and have no concerns. Clovermoss (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. valereee (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ivanvector[edit]

Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Hi everyone, I'm Greg (it says so on my user page). I've been an editor for ten years almost to the day, I've been an administrator for nearly three of those years, and having been a checkuser briefly over the past year I am also already a signatory to the access to nonpublic information policy. In real life I'm an accountant specializing in payroll and inventory control, so making tedious lists of minutiae, ticking boxes, and making sure things are done according to process for process' sake are literally what I do for a living. You can see some of my monotonous poring over statistics here (with discussion here). Fairness in electoral processes is a keen interest of mine, and to that end I've served as an electoral poll clerk and/or scrutineer for several Canadian elections and likely will do so again on October 21st. I'm interested in helping to ensure that this year's Arbcom election runs smoothly and fairly. Since everyone else has declared it explicitly, I also have no intention of standing for election to the Arbitration Committee itself. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Ivanvector[edit]

I had been critical of Ivanvector in the past (CU election) where I was skeptic about him (due to a few past incidents) if he could use the tools without bias. Now, I am happy to admit that I my concerns were proved wrong and his conduct since then, was with utmost fairness. Since then based on whatever interactions I have had with Ivan, have completely changed my mind, to the point that now I strongly support his candidature. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing Ivanvector[edit]

  1. Yes, please! OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. El_C 18:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good enough for Canada's elections. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Volunteer Marek 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Yep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ...although another that should be dealing the cards rather than counting the chips. Les joues sont fait. ——SerialNumber54129 19:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CThomas3 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – bradv🍁 20:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. –Davey2010Talk 21:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Most definitely. (rather you were running for arbcom though.) --regentspark (comment) 01:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I thought we talked about this and you were going to run for Arbcom. – Levivich 02:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Happy days, LindsayHello 11:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. qedk (t 桜 c) 13:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I realize it's not especially helpful that I've now endorsed five candidates for three positions, but it's my way of saying that I'm okay with all of them. Like some of the other commenters, I'd rather see a few of these people running for the Committee instead of the Commission, given that will have eleven seats to fill, at least seven of which will not have incumbents. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. If it's good enough for Canada, it's good enough for me. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. SITH (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mahveotm (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Happily! --BDD (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. FASTILY 22:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Schazjmd (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Happy with all the candidates. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. All of the volunteers are respected and qualified, but I'll only choose three to support. —DoRD (talk)​ 02:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. The strongest candidate. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I'll be watching for an influx of Canadians, but seems a great skillset Nosebagbear (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. What Newyorkbrad said. Regards SoWhy 14:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Loopy30 (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per Newyorkbrad, whose command of both mathematics and logic is impeccable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Has the necessary skills. – Uanfala (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40.   Aloha27  talk  13:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. No concerns whatsoever. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:47, 15 October 2019
  42. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I’d be fine with any of the 5, but I’ll pick my 3 preferences. -Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. — Harshil want to talk? 17:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Choosing my top three signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Per my comment above. Would have been happier to see him run for the committee.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Electoral_Commission&oldid=1086093063"