 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
I have been on Wikipedia for a pretty long time (my userpage tells the story), but this is the first year I've felt compelled to write a voter guide.
We've got a great candidate turnout this year – certainly more people than I expected to are taking the plunge and signing up for perhaps the most thankless (and certainly the most criticized) role Wikipedia has to offer. A lot of really good candidates are running, which is good because we've got 11 seats to fill.
I don't have any sort of litmus test; if the candidates are "wrong" about certain issues I'm passionate about but are otherwise dedicated, experienced, clueful, and willing to take the slings and arrows that come with the job, I'm happy to support. I've asked a few of the candidates various questions (thank you to all the candidates for responding) but I don't have a "standard set" of questions I subject each candidate to. Each candidate is different and my questions are based on my curiosity about the candidate's specific history, experience or philosophy.
This year I am supporting 10 candidates for the 11 open seats. I welcome feedback on the talk page.
Strongest support
edit
Brad is empathetic, reasonable, and a hard worker, all key qualities for an arbitrator. He has served multiple terms on the committee (wisely taking breaks in between many of them) and his experience in the role is second to none. The fact that he assembled and presented to the committee a well-thought out set of proposed principles, findings of fact, and decisions on a case this summer – and he was not on the committee at the time – is but one example of how dedicated this editor is to the project. I am very glad he chose to run again this year.
Dave is sensible, reasonable, and responsive. He has been willing to engage with community members with questions and concerns about things the committee is doing (or not doing.) He has served well in the role over multiple terms and I have no doubt he will continue to do so.
Cas is another veteran committee member who has demonstrated that he has what it takes to do the job well. Intelligent, reasonable, and experienced.
Also supporting
editA former arbitrator and admin and current bureaucrat whose passion for this place is clear. He has served well as a bureaucrat and will be a voice of reason and experience on the committee.
Like Xeno, a long-tenured bureaucrat with a lengthy record of thoughtful and positive contributions.
A former arb and prolific content creator: dedicated, knowledgeable, and unflappable.
Beeblebrox has a sharp BS detector and is unafraid of telling it like it is, which the committee needs. He has also served well as an oversighter, and understands when discretion is called for.
A very long-term editor and administrator with a compelling candidate statement and solid answers to the questions.
I was not very familiar with Llywrch prior to their throwing their hat in the ring, so I had to do some research. I like what I see: long-term editor (since 2002) and administrator, friendly and helpful talk page interactions, prolific content creator, solid candidate statement and good answers to the questions. What's not to like? The incoming committee is likely to be full of veteran committee members, so having a fresh face who's nonetheless put in a ton of time and effort here would be a good thing, I think.
I struggled with this choice a little at first, since during the Fram case there were a small number of arbs (led by Gorilla Warfare and Worm That Turned) who really set the gold standard for responsiveness, replying to legitimate questions and concerns about the process from editors not on the committee; I don't feel any of the other arbs this year met the high standard GW and WTT set. But after rereading the commentary Katie offered during that case and others, I feel we would be losing a hard-working, knowledgeable, and experienced arb if we did not extend her term, so I am happy to support keeping her on the committee.
Honorable mention / neutral
editThere are four additional candidates I would not mind seeing on the committee, but not at the expense of losing one of the 10 listed above.
Some great answers to the candidate questions, and no major reasons for concern, but a longer tenure as admin would be beneficial.
As with Barkeep49, there is a lot to like about BradV, but some additional experience as administrator wouldn't be a bad thing.
A valuable contributor, especially on the technical side. With most of the candidate questions still unanswered (as of Nov. 14) I worry that the intense time demands of the committee might not suit him.
SoWhy would probably be better suited to the bureaucrat role (I supported his RfB) as others have noted his sometimes rigid approach, but I think he would nonetheless do fine, especially as one of 15 or so.
Would like to support, but can't (this year, at least) / oppose
editRich is a long-tenured Wikipedian with many positive contributions under his belt, but with many highly-engaged and highly-active candidates on the ballot, concerns other editors have expressed about Rich's relatively low recent activity level are reasonable. I look forward to supporting him in future elections.
Chris has the needed experience and is in many respects a great candidate, but I can't get past his eagerness to repeatedly refer to a fellow editor as a "harasser" this summer, even after multiple editors asked him to stop. Repeatedly calling someone a "liar", "harasser", or "abuser", even if we can produce evidence that they've said something untrue, hounded someone, or directed abusive language at someone, does not comport with my understanding of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
Other opposes
editThe 6 candidates that have not already been mentioned in the above sections will be getting an oppose from me, for various reasons. Since each of them has been opposed in multiple other guides, I won't "pile on" with my own criticism here. I will simply say I do not think they would be a good fit for the role, and leave it at that.