 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Go away! Don't read this!
editYou 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. (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 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 11 seats to be filled in this election, an unusually high number due to an unusual amount of attrition, in a mix of one-year and two-year terms. I usually don't try to support exactly 11 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 am supporting nine candidates for the 11 open seats. There are 22 candidates running. I've thought about this, and I've decided to support fewer than 11, because it would be better to have a few empty seats than to have flawed members getting elected. There are relatively few candidates whom I regard as completely unqualified, so quite a few of my opposes are very mild and just reflect the fact that other candidates seem to me to be a bit better. 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 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.
This year, I am taking some specific factors into account as well. In light of the large turnover, I'm giving some preference to candidates who have not been on the Committee before, because we need to build a new generation of members, instead of turning to the same people year after year. And of particularly large importance to me, I'm taking into account what has happened in the past year. A highlight of the year was the Committee's letter to the Wikimedia Foundation, asserting the community's right to self-governance. Unfortunately, there were multiple bad decisions in the months just after that (the Fram case, and the off-wiki Ritchie case, in particular). As a result, I'm putting a premium on the ability to consider nuance, rather than to judge quickly or harshly.
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/ACE2019, 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barkeep49 | I'm very enthusiastic about supporting Barkeep49. An administrator who will bring "new blood" to the Committee membership, his judgment is very sound, and this is a strong support. |  Support |
|
| Beeblebrox | A long-time admin and former Arb, he can certainly do the job, but he tends to be harsh in his judgments, so I'm passing him up in favor of candidates with more nuanced approaches. |  Oppose |
|
| Bradv | A clerk to the Committee, I think that he will be a good new member. A bit of a tendency to be too assertive, but his views on the issues are right. | Support |
|
| Calidum | A non-admin with a mixed history. | Oppose |
|
| Casliber | This is a case where I'm just fine with going back to a previous member of the Committee. He is thoughtful and has strong content experience, and I trust him to make careful decisions. | Support |
|
| David Fuchs | A former Arb, and could certainly do the job again. This is a very mild oppose, simply because I'd like to favor people who will be new to the Committee. | Oppose |
|
| DGG | A former Arb who is a bit sloppy in posting his comments, but he is gentle in his judgments and willing to dissent from the majority, so I think he can help get things back on the right track. | Support |
|
| Enterprisey | A nice person, but more of a technical expert than someone with experience in complex dispute resolution. | Oppose |
|
| Gadfium | An admin who would be new to the Committee, he was on the right side of the Fram controversy. | Support |
|
| Hawkeye7 | I have a gut feeling that he would actually do a good job, but he is a desysopped former admin who was rejected by the community in a reconfirmation RfA. | Oppose |
|
| Isarra | Not a serious candidate. | Oppose |
|
| KrakatoaKatie | A current member seeking a second term. She has done a good job of communicating with the community. But I feel that she has been firmly on the wrong side of recent decisions. | Oppose |
|
| Kudpung | A long-time admin, but too much of a harsh judge for what I'm looking for this year. | Oppose |
|
| Llywrch | A long-time admin and content creator who would bring "new blood". | Support |
|
| Maxim | A bureaucrat with a lot of experience, but he was on the wrong side of the Fram controversy, putting procedure ahead of principle. | Oppose |
|
| Newyorkbrad | Although I've said that I want to see new members, this is one case where, if he is willing to do it again, I'm all for it. His workshop proposals in the Fram case were what the Committee should have done. My single strongest support this year. | Support |
|
| Richwales | A nice guy with a lot of experience and advanced permissions, who could clearly do a good job, but I think there are other candidates who are just a bit stronger. | Oppose |
|
| SoWhy | An admin with plenty of experience, who also could do the job, but he is a little too by-the-numbers. | Oppose |
|
| The Rambling Man | A former admin with a chip on his shoulder, and he doesn't take "no" for an answer. | Oppose |
|
| Thryduulf | I really like Thryduulf a lot, and I had a hard time getting to this oppose. He is a former Arb who is generally very clueful and attentive to detail, but his views on the Fram case this year are a deal-breaker for me. | Oppose |
|
| Worm That Turned | A current member seeking another term. I fully trust his judgement in spite of some recent bad decisions by the Committee. I have the feeling that he held the Committee together when they were grossly understaffed. | Support |
|
| Xeno | A former member whose judgment is always dependable, and I trust him to make the right decisions. | Support |
And finally...
editBeing 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!