User:Tryptofish/ACE2024
 | 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 nine seats to be filled in this election, with twelve candidates running. I usually don't try to support exactly nine 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 nine 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'd rather have a seat left unfilled, than have someone elected who should not have been. At least, this isn't as important as the recent US election.)
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.
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/ACE2024, 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaptainEek | CaptainEek is a sitting Arb, seeking reelection. She is very attentive to feedback from the community, which is important to me. She also seems to have been pushing the rest of the Committee to move forward with the current Palestine-Israel case, which was happening too slowly, and which is much needed. This is one of my strongest, most enthusiastic, supports this year. |  Support |
|
| Daniel | Daniel is an experienced admin, who strikes me as having good judgment. I think he will bring a useful new voice to the Committee. | Support |
|
| Elli | Elli is a relatively new admin, and she will also bring a new voice to the group. | Support |
|
| Guerillero | Guerillero is a sitting member, whom I have strongly opposed in the past, because of what I have seen as bad judgment (as when he was rude to other editors). In his past term, there haven't been any serious problems, although I notice that the other Arbs often disagree with his proposals, so this time, this is just a very mild oppose. |  Oppose |
|
| Just Step Sideways | Just Step Sideways, formerly known as Beeblebrox, is a former Arb, seeking to get back onto the Committee. He tends to be more of a "hanging judge" than what I prefer. This past term, he was removed from ArbCom by his fellow members, after having revealed what he describes as non-specific information from ArbCom's private communications, on the external Wikipedia-criticism website Wikipediocracy. A lot of his candidacy strikes me as seeking reaffirmation. But I just don't feel that the community should trust him enough, to make reelection worth it. | Oppose |
|
| KrakatoaKatie | Katie used to be a member of ArbCom, a couple of years ago. At that time, I did not always agree with her decisions, but I have no doubt that she has good judgment nevertheless. I support her return to the Committee. | Support |
|
| Liz | Liz is an experienced and very active administrator, and has previously worked for ArbCom as a clerk. I think she would make a good new member of the Committee. | Support |
|
| Primefac | Primefac is a current Arb, seeking another term. There are some things I could find fault with, including a mistake he made this year and addresses on his questions page, as well as what I see as his reluctance to take on the Palestine-Israel case. But when I consider his work overall, I see him as a very sensible and responsible member who contributes well to the work of the Committee. On balance, I can support him enthusiastically. | Support |
|
| ScottishFinnishRadish | ScottishFinnishRadish is a very active and effective administrator, who does a lot of work at Arbitration Enforcement. He also comments at Wikipediocracy, so he will need to be careful not to make the same kinds of mistakes that JSS made, but I think that he is likely to be a good new voice on the Committee. | Support |
|
| Simonm223 | Less qualified than other candidates, he is the only candidate this year who is not an administrator. He is an experienced editor, but my sense from reading his answers to candidate questions is that he might not really appreciate what he would be in for, if elected. | Oppose |
|
| Theleekycauldron | Theleekycauldron is a very active and popular administrator, who would be new to ArbCom. I suspect that she will be easily elected, regardless of what I say here. But she has repeatedly done things that make me feel that she does not, yet, have the maturity to make the right judgments on ArbCom. In particular, she has done a lot to push through the 2024 RfA reforms, including administrator recall, without really getting what I would consider to be the necessary consensus ([1], also [2]). If a few more years of showing better work with the community were to come, I could easily see me supporting her in a future run. | Oppose |
|
| Worm That Turned | Along with CaptainEek, this is one of my two most enthusiastic supports this year. WTT is a past member of ArbCom, seeking to come back to the Committee after some time away. He has always been one of the smartest and most attentive people on the Committee, and I support him with the very highest of enthusiasm. | 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!