User:Tryptofish/ACE2016
 | 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 some guides are just weird (in fact, most of them are). 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. 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 very close observation of them, 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. (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, however, I am supporting exactly seven, and doing so strategically. Remarkably, this is the first year in memory in which there are no candidates who are bad choices! I could comfortably vote "support" for everyone who is running this year! Consequently, I oppose some candidates, not because I think that they would do a bad job, but because I think that the candidates I'm supporting are the best of the group. I don't qualify my supports or opposes as being "strong" or "weak", but this year all of the "opposes" are very mild opposes, and the relative strengths of my "supports" are just matters of degree. You can get a feel for those nuances if you read my comments, which you 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. It seems to me that over the past decade or so the Committee has gone from being too lenient to being too harsh.
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/ACE2016, and if you do, I will 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calidum | A sensible and articulate member of the community, whom I would be supporting most other years, but there are seven stronger candidates this year. |  Oppose |
|
| DeltaQuad | DeltaQuad is running for reelection to the Committee, and she deserves to be reelected. I have come to care very much about the capacity of individual Arbitrators to reconsider and change their opinions after hearing back from the community. She has actively sought feedback, and in the Hardy case this year (in which she was the primary drafter), she made significant changes in response to criticisms of the draft Proposed Decision. This year the Committee has been doing that more, with less circling of the wagons, and that's a trend that I want to see continue. |  Support |
|
| DGG | DGG is another member running for reelection this year. Writing is not his strong suit, and he should probably do less drafting of decisions, but he has repeatedly been an important dissenting vote. He is better than other Arbs at seeing things from the accused's perspective, and serves as an important control against overreaching. I think that he and Newyorkbrad, together, will be good influences on the other members. | Support |
|
| Doug Weller | The third current member seeking reelection, and I've had to think hard about this one. He said some very unpleasant things to me during the GMO case (cf my comment above about not circling the wagons), but I have to conclude that this should not determine my recommendation here. He is a well-rounded editor and administrator, and I do support his reelection. | Support |
|
| Euryalus | I'm supporting with high enthusiasm. A member of the Committee in the past, and one of its smartest and most sensible members. He has continued to perform excellent work as an administrator. | Support |
|
| Ks0stm | He's had a lot of experience as an ArbCom Clerk, and is a likeable person who expresses himself well and has a good understanding of the arbitration process. | Support |
|
| LFaraone | A former Arb, and certainly qualified, but he was a less effective member than some others, and his recent activity has been low. | Oppose |
|
| Mkdw | Mkdw would be a new member, and I think that he would be an excellent addition. Very smart, and both a good editor and a good administrator. I was glad to see him run. | Support |
|
| Newyorkbrad | What can I say? Instead of being elected, he should probably be beatified or have a bronze statue made. But seriously, he is absolutely one of the most clueful past members of the Committee, ever, and arguably the most clueful editor in the whole project. He does not rush to judgment, but really considers the facts. It will be great to have him back on the Committee. My top choice of all the candidates. | Support |
|
| Salvidrim! | A good administrator and all-around good editor, and I would be supporting in a different field of candidates. This oppose is as mild as is possible. I just think that other candidates would be more committed to the heavy workload. | Oppose |
|
| Writ Keeper | Lots of good experience in roles with responsibilities (including as a Bureaucrat) – and a sense of humor is a good thing, as is not taking oneself too seriously. But he is clearly less committed to the work than other candidates this year. | Oppose |
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 I also want to thank Courcelles, a current member who is not seeking reelection, but who has served with distinction.