 | 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 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 eight seats to be filled in this election, with twelve candidates running. I usually don't try to support exactly eight 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 nine candidates for the eight 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 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.
I believe that ArbCom has gotten better at what it does in the last few years, and that the quality of the people elected to it has been quite strong. Consequently, I'm enthusiastically supporting several current members seeking second terms, while trying to prevent any slippage back to the problems of the past.
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/ACE2022, 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barkeep49 | Along with CaptainEek, L235, and Primefac, Barkeep49 is one of four current Arbs seeking a second term, and I am supporting all of them with the highest of enthusiasm. Something that I really like to see in Arbitrators is to be actively engaged in communicating onsite with members of the community – not just working behind the scenes (as important as that is) and occasionally showing up to vote onsite. And what goes hand-in-hand with that is being open to hearing feedback from the community and being willing to change one's mind when the facts support doing so. Barkeep49 has been tireless in that role, and has done it with intelligence and grace. If he's willing to do that for another two years, we are fortunate to have him. Strongest possible support. |  Support |
|
| BoldLuis | With no special experience, and blocked at one time on the Spanish Wikipedia, not a qualified candidate. |  Oppose |
|
| CaptainEek | CaptainEek is the second of the candidates seeking a second term, and has my enthusiastic support. I appreciate very much the way that they have listened to community feedback, and have been willing to change their mind. Strong support. | Support |
|
| GeneralNotability | An administrator and checkuser who has been trustworthy in those roles, GeneralNotability would be a new member of the Committee, and I think this is someone who would do a good job. | Support |
|
| Guerillero | I feel strongly about this. This is someone who should not be on the Committee. He was an Arb several years ago, and is a perennial candidate seeking to return to the Committee after having been a Clerk and active at WP:AE. A few years ago, while acting in an administrative capacity (and not as part of a conversation where editors were just kidding around), he dismissed another editor's concerns by simply saying "OK boomer", and was less than emphatic about regretting having done so: [1]. When he was last on the Committee, he was one of two members responsible for drafting the decision in the GMO case, where I was the filing party and I saw up close what was going on. He completely bailed on the writing, leaving it entirely for the other member to do alone. Members of ArbCom need to take the role seriously and responsibly. And yet, his personal guide to arbitration treats Arb inactivity pretty flippantly. Recently, he has taken strong positions that amount to saying that ArbCom should tend to defer to the WMF. Nothing could be further from the truth. Really, I would hate to see him put back onto the Committee. | Oppose |
|
| L235 | Another of the current Arbs seeking a second term. L235/Kevin has been a standout in paying close attention to what the community is saying, and in being transparent about his own reasons for his actions. Intelligent and trustworthy, he has played a pivotal role in making the Committee work well in the past two years. My strongest possible support. | Support |
|
| Moneytrees | Moneytrees recently became an admin after a close RfA that ended in a "Crat Chat". He has been immensely helpful in working on copyright infringement cases, an essential yet thankless task. He has also had some useful preparation in training to be an ArbCom Clerk. I'm giving a cautious support on that basis, while also being a bit concerned that he may end up with burnout from the job. But he has demonstrated a willingness to recognize and admit mistakes, and that pushes me just over the line into support. | Support |
|
| Primefac | The fourth of my very strong supports for current Arbs seeking a second term. Primefac has been reliable and trustworthy in helping make the Committee's work more transparent, and amply deserves another term. | Support |
|
| Robert McClenon | Robert is not an administrator, something that historically has never resulted in a successful candidacy for ArbCom, even though it is not a formal requirement. However, he does a tremendous amount of work at WP:DRN, and I think that he deserves to be taken seriously as a candidate. He says in his candidate statement that he would like to see the Committee take on more of the cases that just fester at WP:ANI. If he were just one vote out of 15 on case requests, I think that this would bring a useful perspective to the process. He's a long shot, but he has my support. | Support |
|
| Sdrqaz | Sdrqaz is a recently elected administrator, and has been doing a good job, and has some good content experience. That's not as much for me to go on, as for some of the other candidates, but I can support. | Support |
|
| SilkTork | SilkTork was an Arb in the past, and I think that he would be a good person to add back to the group. He is very smart and thoughtful, and a good listener. | Support |
|
| Tamzin | I like and respect Tamzin personally. And I appreciate their work as an admin at WP:AE. But I don't think that they would be a good fit for ArbCom. In particular, they have views about aggressive use of personal information in tracking disruptive conduct that are at odds with current community expectations, and I think that this would lead to dysfunction on the Committee. | Oppose |
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!