User:Yngvadottir/ACE2024

A little late, here's my guide to the 2024 ArbCom election. (Voting opened a few hours ago and runs through 2 December UTC.)

Voting for ArbCom really is voting. It's by secret ballot, and to get elected requires at least 50% support (for a one-year term; 60% for a two-year term), with neutral/abstain votes not counting, and the top vote-getters being seated (except that no more than 8 people can be elected to one-year terms). Running for ArbCom is IMO more like standing for political office than anything else on Wikipedia, including running for Bureaucrat.

ArbCom is the last stop for many issues, the only venue for dealing with private evidence, and until a month ago the only venue for consideration of whether an admin should be desysopped. ArbCom cases are time-consuming and gruelling, and ArbCom decisions (including private decisions on private evidence, and private responses or lack of responses, and private deliberations on how much opportunity someone should be given to defend themselves, or how much credence their account should be given) can do great and irrevocable damage, far worse than deleting the main page for half an hour; or they can ameliorate a thoroughly nasty situation. ArbCom is also en.wiki's primary defence against the WMF, which also does great damage to the projects with its overreach and its misplaced priorities. I want Arbs who read and consider the evidence presented, with justice and the good of Wikipedia in mind. I don't want Arbs who are myopically rule-bound or otherwise insensitive to the individuals who are brought before the committee (registered editors, unregistered editors, long-term editors, newbies, and admins). I don't want Arbs who are single-mindedly convinced of their own rectitude or the nobility of their political aims. I don't want Arbs who cosy up to the WMF (and I consider working for the WMF to be a conflict of interest, disqualificatory in an Arb). And I consider having been an ArbCom clerk as indicative of political ambition and possibly authoritarianism, so that's a black mark to me.

People can change; in determining how I'll vote, I've looked back to the Arb case arising from Fram's outrageous treatment by WMF "Trust & Safety", and to my own desysopping for defying the rules of admin engagement in the interests of natural justice ... but I've placed more weight on answers to questions and recent events. For one thing, those old concerns don't apply to many of the candidates this time around; I'm pleased to see a mix of former and current Arbs and never-Arbs running, and every year I hope to support a non-admin.

The maximum size of the committee is 15; with 6 Arbs continuing, there are 9 vacancies this year. But 15 is quite a crowd. Except for admins as a whole, I can't think of any other specialised role on en.wiki where the group is expected to be that large. If the big number is intended to promote diversity in viewpoints, I think that's a misplaced concern: tokenism is bad, we all have the option of anonymity here, and as I've said elsewhere, the "gender gap" is a matter of perception supported by fatally flawed research. I'm leery of candidates who declare their gender as one of their reasons for running. If the big number is intended to allow for Arbs getting busy, or sick, and going inactive or dropping out entirely (which I believe is the main rationale), it's as likely to exacerbate the perceived problem as to help with it, by increasing the number of Arbs expected to be active at any one time, and by encouraging people to vote for iffy candidates to pad out the group. The current ArbCom got down to 4 active Arbs, but whatever the reason for that low level of participation was, we can't fix it by just adding warm bodies. The ideal is a good group, not a large group, and the diversity of voters' viewpoints (Wikipedians are not known for thinking in lockstep with each other!) will ensure those elected aren't a bunch of clones.

My list

Candidate	Comments	Opinion
CaptainEek	Recent statements at ArbCom have caused me to lose confidence in their judgement, most recently forgetting or not realising that secret evidence had been submitted. Responses to questions show them to be too comfortable working with the WMF (and not to see any potential privacy issue with allowing clerks access to the Arbcom mailing list).	Oppose
Daniel	Willing to give them a chance, despite their having been a clerk. Clear-headedly opposes the WMF caving in on the India lawsuit.	Support
Elli	Willing to give them a chance. Some naïveté about the WMF, but not a suck-up; values transparency, says they like resolving disputes.	Support
Guerillero	The only candidate running who voted to desysop me during a previous ArbCom stint. More importantly, their terse answers to questions include completely dodging Kudpung's question about the role of ArbCom in relations with the WMF. (A former clerk as well as a former arb.)	Oppose
Just Step Sideways	Has demonstrated both integrity and a willingness to reconsider; the first of the two "leaks" of information concerning ArbCom deliberations (more of a hint via a hypothetical) demonstrated the first plus a concern for fairness that is valuable in an Arb and for that matter an admin; their responses to their ensuing treatment by the current ArbCom demonstrate both.	Support
KrakatoaKatie	Naïve about the WMF. Running partly as a gender-gap candidate. When previously on the committee, voted not to reinstate Fram's adminship.	Oppose
Liz	Has proven to be a workhorse admin, but I still have some of the concerns about judgement at the drama boards that led me to oppose their RfA. At the question page, is being swayed on the India court case by respect for the WMF. Was a clerk before running for admin. Mentions the gender gap as one reason for running.	Oppose
Primefac	Bad answer on the WMF India lawsuit, dismissing well founded concerns. Actions before and during the Nihonjoe case suggest their hard work in suppression has led them to consider suppression a tool of first resort; then their denial of involvement in the case while a named party showed very poor judgement.	Oppose
ScottishFinnishRadish	A workhorse admin who makes hard decisions but is willing to rethink. Good answer on the WMF India lawsuit.	Support
Simonm223	The only true non-admin candidate, and not a strong enough one for me to support. Does not appear to have researched the job enough before running.	Oppose
Theleekycauldron	Willing to give them a chance. A lot of thoughtful work recently. Drafted a blackout statement over the WMF India lawsuit.	Support
Worm That Turned	In the past, has shown excessive deference to the WMF; answer to a question shows this is still an issue. During a previous stint on the committee, did vote against the motion not to reinstate Fram's adminship. Past efforts to enable banned editors to return have been commendable but shown poor judgement on whom to trust (a problem with several recent ArbComs).	Reluctant oppose