User:Tryptofish/ACE2020
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Go away! Don't read this!
[edit]You really should not care what I say here. I'm not a reliable source, and everything that follows is nothing more than original research. The entire voter guide system is flawed. Many of the guide writers have axes to grind, and a lot of guides are just weird. I do hope that you will vote in the election, and that you will think carefully about your vote. But voter guides should not be taken too seriously. And if you are here just for the lulz, you are going to be disappointed by how boring my opinions are.
I don't try to predict the outcome. (In 2016, my supports predicted the outcome with 100% accuracy, but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen again!) Rather, I try to give you good faith advice about who would or would not serve best on the Committee, based on my long-time close observation and my participation in cases. I don't do "neutral" or "abstain", so I'm going to offer an opinion on every candidate, for better or for worse. There are seven seats to be filled in this election, with twelve candidates running. I usually don't try to support exactly seven candidates and oppose the rest (so called "strategic voting"), but I do try to align my level of support approximately with the level of need.
This year, I'm supporting eight candidates for the seven open seats. I don't label my supports or opposes as being "strong" or "weak", but you can get a feel for those nuances if you read my comments, which you definitely should.
I don't have any litmus tests, but I look for candidates whom I trust. I consider how well a candidate's views match up with where I think the community is at, and how I think the particular candidate will fit in as one member of a committee. That latter point includes how well the candidate communicates with the community and is inclined towards transparency, and how well I think they will be able to handle the tensions of the workload and the controversies. I think it's important to care about improving how the Committee works. I also care about willingness to consider the evidence, to not act rashly, and – especially – to listen to community feedback and to change one's mind in response to feedback.
This year, I'm also giving some weight to the value of bringing new people, with new perspectives, onto the Committee (although there are only two current and one former members running, so this is pretty likely anyway). Civility also turned out to matter to me as I looked at this group. Although I've significantly cut back on my own editing activity in the past year, I've nonetheless been following ArbCom pretty closely, and was actively involved in giving evidence and workshop proposals in two cases this year.
Per this discussion, I want to offer candidates the opportunity to rebut anything that I say here. Please feel free to do so at User talk:Tryptofish/ACE2020, and if you do, I'll make a notation in the table below, just to the right of my recommendation, so that anyone looking here will be directed to it.
Recommendations
[edit]| Candidate | Comments | Recommendation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barkeep49 | Barkeep49 is an experienced admin who has a thorough understanding of dispute resolution and is very thoughtful about considering both sides of an issue. I especially appreciate that he is willing to listen to feedback and to change his mind when appropriate. A strong support from me. |  Support |
|
| BDD | BDD is a nice person and an experienced admin, although less experienced in complex dispute resolution than other candidates. Still, I think he can be a positive contributor to the Committee. | Support |
|
| Bradv | A current Arb seeking reelection, and one of my most enthusiastic supports this year. He is active and articulate in communicating how he reaches decisions, and doesn't just issue "me-too" votes. In the recent Medicine case, which left parties on both sides unhappy, he impressed me with his willingness to take feedback seriously, and did an excellent job of explaining after the case ended what he had learned based on that feedback. | Support |
|
| CaptainEek | An admin and content creator who is sensible and articulate. They strike me as a nice person. | Support |
|
| Guerillero | What I'm about to say here is the biggest motivation I had for creating a guide this year, and I hope that it will be heard. He was an Arb several years ago and is seeking to return to the Committee after having been a Clerk in the interim. As such, he may have a good likelihood of being elected. I hope that will not happen. In the past year, while acting in an administrative capacity, and not as part of a conversation where editors were just kidding around, he dismissed another editor's concerns by simply saying "OK boomer". I asked him about this before starting this guide: [1]. His answer strikes me as ambivalent, and as at least partly blaming the target, instead of himself. Of course, anyone can have a one-off, but I think this is part of a pattern. When he was last on the Committee, he was one of two members responsible for drafting the decision in the GMO case, where I was the filing party and I saw up close what was going on. He completely bailed on the writing, leaving it entirely for the other member to do alone. Members of ArbCom need to take the role seriously and responsibly. He should not be reelected. |  Oppose |
|
| Hawkeye7 | A former admin who was desysopped and who has repeatedly failed reconfirmation RfAs. | Oppose |
|
| L235 | An admin and ArbCom Clerk, and someone who has consistently impressed me with his intellect and consideration for others. He already knows his way around the arbitration process, and he can be counted on to listen to editors and to communicate clearly with them. He would be a very strong addition to the Committee, and I support him enthusiastically. | Support |
|
| Maxim | This is the mildest of opposes, and I just think that there are some better candidates this year. Like Bradv, he is a current Arb seeking reelection, and was a drafting Arb in the Medicine case. But unlike Bradv, he seems to me to have not really taken on board feedback from the community about the things that went wrong in that case. I asked him about this before deciding here: [2]. His answers were not bad, but they seem superficial to me. He has also done very little as an Arb to explain his decision-making to the community. In fairness, I want to note that some of his fellow Arbs have spoken highly of the work he has done quietly behind the scenes: [3]. He certainly is capable of doing the job, but I'd give an edge to bringing on some new members. | Oppose |
|
| Primefac | A very experienced administrator who also holds other advanced permissions, and I think that he has good judgment. | Support |
|
| Scottywong | A mild oppose from me. He's a smart admin, but most of his editing experience has been with technical matters, rather than with content creation, and he's had some history of conflicts where he was at least in part at fault. | Oppose |
|
| SMcCandlish | The only candidate this year who has never been an admin, which historically has meant that he would be a long-shot to get elected. But I'm giving him what I'm thinking of as my eighth support because he is a thoughtful person who is willing to listen to others, and he clearly cares about the project. | Support |
|
| TonyBallioni | Another of my very strongest supports this year. I've been hoping for a couple of years that he would run, and I'm glad that he finally has. An experienced admin with other advanced permissions, and someone who thinks for himself. He's articulate and a good listener, and he has my enthusiastic support. | |
And finally...
[edit]Being on ArbCom is a difficult and largely thankless task, but if it is done right, it makes Wikipedia a better place for the rest of us. Thank you to everyone who is a candidate in this election, and to all of the outgoing Committee members!