User:Wugapodes/ACE2020

Like last year, this is not a voter guide in the traditional sense, and if you use it as one you are making a mistake. Do your own research. If you're still reading I like to publicly share my ballot as a matter of accountability. When re-election comes around I want some record I can points to of who I supported and why so that I can see if they've lived up to the expectations I had. Similarly, I want others to know how I voted so that the community can see and consider the values I find important in ArbCom, and it allows others to challenge me should I betray those values. Strategically, the best way to get your preferred candidates on the committee is to support them and oppose all others. In another race at another time, I could find myself supporting many of the candidates I strategically opposed.

Support

In order of preference:

1. Primefac - I find myself agreeing with Primefac very often, and his platform touches on all of the issues that I think are most pressing such as anti-harassment and WMF relations. Giving Primefac a "seat at the table" makes it astronomically easier to test and implement his reforms, and he has the humility to scrap an idea if it's not working.
2. Barkeep49 - Similar to Primefac, I agree with Barkeep on a lot. His platform shows a great deal of thought, and it's that circumspection that I think is most valuable.
3. L235 - His diagnosis of the AC/DS problems is wonderful and like Primefac, placing him on the committee will make it easier to implement his reforms as he can initiate motions sua sponte. His role as a clerk is invaluable to reform as he's seen the snags in the system, and I've worked with him on outreach efforts where he has shown a dedication to editor recruitment and retention.
4. CaptainEek - Unlike the above, I'm not well versed in their body of work, but I like what I've seen and they come highly recommended. I like their planks of increasing transparency and reforming AC/DS, and having them and Kevin (L235) on the committee will make it more likely that reforms happen
5. Bradv - incumbent and I've liked his work so far. I see no reason not to give another term.
6. BDD - They volunteered because we needed hands. They answered questions briefly yet thoughtfully. I liked their answers. We have a lot of candidates who are policy/process wonks, and I like that BDD isn't. I value their thoughts and I would like to amplify them.
7. SMcCandlish - Following Tony's withdrawal, I believe Scott is closest to the role I saw Tony fulfilling: a measured thinker who will temper and improve reform through dialectic. With that in mind, Scott uniquely provides a non-administrator perspective which also benefits the oversight role of ArbCom (as in, stopping tool abuse not use of suppression). My previously listed concerns have been addressed on the question page and on this essay, so I don't have reservations in supporting.

   Unedited commentary from the oppose rationale His answer to the question about the Signpost shows great retrospection and humility. That said, his answers to questions are long (which is usual for him) and this makes it hard to engage with especially where brevity is an asset. While I'm not against a non-admin being on ArbCom, it seems like his inability to view deleted content may be a liability for the committee as they will need to provide it to him. None of this is disqualifying, but when compared to other candidates in this election I think he falls below my top 7.

Oppose

Alphabetically:

• Guerillero - I worry about the ability to devote enough time to committee work. I also worry about losing two clerks in one cycle. They would probably be among my supports if the numbers worked out differently.
• Hawkeye7 - I supported in Hawkeye's two most recent RfAs, but neither succeeded. Because the community explicitly decided not to grant the admin tools, I believe it would be wrong to grant an ArbCom seat which often includes the more powerful OS/CU permissions.
• Maxim - While I appreciate Maxim and the work they do behind the scenes, lack of communication is problem with the committee and I have not been impressed by Maxim's transparency. Were they not an incumbent, this would probably be a neutral, but strategically an oppose helps my preferred candidates more.
• ScottyWong - It's not clear what he's done after resuming editing. I don't recall seeing him around much, and over the last two years he's amassed ~2500 edits, most in the last few months. I worry that he's out of touch with the zeitgeist.
• TonyBallioni - As Tony has withdrawn, I oppose giving a seat to someone who does not want it.

  Previous support rationale We're losing a number of Arbs that I valued for their restraint, and Tony's criticism of an increasingly active arbcom will help keep the balance. Beyond that, he never fails to make me think, even if I ultimately disagree, and I think that will be valuable for improving the ideas of the more reform-minded candidates I've selected.

Commentary

RevDel

Just FYI, I've confirmed that CheckUser/Oversighter (available to all Arbs) is sufficient for viewing deleted revisions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)