Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2016 elections/Vote

{| style="width:90%; border:1px solid #A3B1BF;" cellspacing="10" align="center"



Support

 * Yeah, looks fine. SST  flyer  03:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC) On second thoughts, no.  SST  flyer  10:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Not enough experience in general, and especially, not enough experience at FLC. S/he hasn't written any FLs and has only reviewed two (1, 2) as far as I can tell. — Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 04:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Yellow Dingo. Neljack (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I too am concerned about a possible lack of experience. It's not just a lack of reviewing/nominating, although I'd like to see more of that. What really concerns me is whether Iazyges understands the FL criteria. Just last month they gave passes at these GAN reviews that were later overturned, and at the latter page admitted a "lack of experience in this". Understanding the criteria of a content process is one of the most fundamental requirements for a delegate at any of the major content projects, and I'm not convinced that this user is there yet. Iazyges, my advice is to become more involved at FLC and begin offering reviews for any candidates that grab your interest; we could certainly use the help. Maybe try working on lists yourself, using what you learn from hanging out at FLC and seeing comments on various issues. That's how you gain skills and experience. Even if you don't become a delegate now, there's no reason that you can't in the future. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Giants2008 &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Just for lack of experience. Hasn't written any featured lists, nor reviewed many. Maybe, if they are interested, they can write a few and review a few and be considered at a later date? Mattximus (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Giants2008, becoming an FL delegate is not the first step to gain experience.-- Cheetah  (talk)  22:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Giants2008 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Giants2008 hit the nail on the head. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Experienced user who has a long and productive history at FLC. Also, due to, some say, unfortunate circumstances, TRM may well have more on-wiki time to devote to things like FLC. — Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 02:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Experienced and well-qualified. While the recent case has highlighted some problematic conduct, overall TRM is a good editor and has made a major contribution to the project. In particular, he has served in this capacity before without, it seems, any significant problems. Neljack (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) This will understandably be a controversial candidacy in some quarters, as TRM was desysopped recently. My response is to offer the dirty secret of being in a leadership position at most content processes: you don't have to be an admin to do the job well. I rarely suffer from not having the tools (hopefully I haven't wrecked anything yet), and non-admins such as SandyGeorgia and SchroCat have done fine work as delegates in the past. (Ironically, the only process I can think of where the tools are really mandatory is getting DYKs on the Main Page.) TRM has a vast reservoir of FL experience as an author and reviewer, along with his long stint as FL director. The issues raised at ArbCom were more commonly from ITN and DYK anyway, and I always thought he did his best work as the leader of FLC. In short, TRM is the most qualified candidate running, and I trust that he will do well as a delegate if the community gives him a chance. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) I can consider his admin actions separate from his potential to help FLC. His track record is very good with 16 featured articles and many more lists to his name. He said he has time and energy for the project, which is not only fantastic, but the biggest deciding factor. He is willing to volunteer his time to this project, one that is in great need of extra support. I support this candidate. Mattximus (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) I've had great interactions with TRM, from reviewing one of his FLs to thanking him for diligent copy edits on my articles. I am surprised there are only two candidates (perhaps this information was not sent to previous FL contributors not frequenting this desk), but even if there were more, I would go for TRM. I've read his arbcom issue in and out. I think even the naysayers would agree with me that there are few editors who can be more trusted than TRM to ensure the FL process standards remain high. Good to have TRM as a delegate (and am very confident TRM would heed the arbcom's advice). Thanks. Lourdes  11:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) There is such a thing as community trust and you have mine.-- Cheetah  (talk)  22:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Is discerning. Will strive to ensure that Featured Content is of appropriate quality and will not compromise on this, which is of prime importance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) I trust that TRM has learned from the recent controversy. His past experience with FLC leads me to believe that he will make a great addition to a much overworked/under-appreciated part of the wiki. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Looking at his actions and approach on DYK etc. since the ArbCom case is very encouraging, a real positive change that shows a desire towards positive contributions. And he has a well developed eye for detail and potential issues.  MPJ  -DK 01:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Good experience, but I am uncomfortable with all that recent controversy. SST  flyer  03:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) There is such a thing as community trust and you don't have mine. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * }