User:Bradv/ACE2023

My criteria

These are the attributes that I think every arbitrator should have. Some of these points are more useful in a voter's guide than others:

Wisdom

Members of the Arbitration Committee must be mature, responsible Wikipedians who have a track record of making wise choices. One of the many pitfalls of the job is that they are often expected to make decisions that would match the consensus of the community, without the benefit of a discussion with the community. This is especially true in private proceedings, but also true when handling public cases. Those who wait for others to tell them what to think will end up only listening to the loudest voices, while those who have been around long enough to know how the community thinks will often instinctively know what decision the community would make if they were presented with all the facts.

Trust

ArbCom, and even individual members of the committee, are often entrusted with sensitive information, much of it very personal in nature. Treating that information with the care and respect it deserves, while respecting the need for transparency in committee proceedings, is a delicate balancing act.

Congeniality

Someone once told me there is no such thing as "an arbitrator", there are only members of the committee. Individually, being an arbitrator is useless – nothing can get done without agreement within the committee. Therefore it is very important for a candidate to demonstrate experience in getting along with others, even/especially when they disagree.

Experience

The committee is tasked with overseeing editors, administrators, and functionaries. When the committee interacts with these people it is usually when they are at their worst, and all other processes have failed. Therefore, the job requires considerable experience, not only in the areas of conduct disputes, but also in content creation, arbitration enforcement, technical knowledge, and policies and procedures.

Tough

This is possibly the most critical. Being on the Arbitration Committee is a tough job, and its toughest moments happen behind the scenes. Candidates must have a track record of being able to handle criticism and disagreement, and should be able to do so without disrupting their health or personal life. I lost a lot of sleep while I was on the committee, and I wouldn't want anyone who wasn't ready for that to have to suffer through it.

Willing

Those who seek membership on the committee as a symbol of power or accomplishment, without actually having the passion and persistence to see the job through, shouldn't. It's a thankless job.

My votes

There are other guides, and you should read them too. These are my votes:

Candidate	Comments	Verdict
Aoidh	Aoidh recently became an administrator, and while I don't recall a lot of interactions with them, their statement and responses to the questions are beyond satisfactory. I have no concerns, and think they check all the boxes.	Y Support
Cabayi	I have served with Cabayi on the committee, and he checks all the boxes for me as well. He is not known to be quite as active or forthcoming with his opinions as I would expect, but that's not always a bad thing. Every team needs its quiet and contemplative types.	Y Support
Firefly	Firefly is a checkuser and a clerk, and has the experience necessary for the role. Both of those jobs are good training ground for ArbCom.	Y Support
HJ Mitchell	A long time admin and oversighter, HJ Mitchell is clearly qualified for the job.	Y Support
Maxim	Maxim has led the way for years in doing the behind-the-scenes work for the committee (the most thankless of the thankless jobs). While I have often disagreed with them on matters facing the committee, I have always considered Maxim a friend and an indispensable member of the team. They should be welcomed back with open arms.	Y Support
Robert McClenon	Robert can often be found posting on case request pages on how the committee process works, but rarely saying much of substance. He is probably best known for his moderation work at WP:DRN, which is largely clerical in nature and doesn't deal with the sort of complex conduct issues the committee faces, or even the types of conduct issues most admins deal with at AE. He also has not passed RfA, and therefore is not qualified to provide oversight to administrators, much less functionaries. I view his nomination here to be an end-run around the RfA process (which he has attempted twice), and therefore I oppose his candidacy.	N Oppose
Sdrqaz	Sdrqaz has plenty of experience, and will bring a lot to the table. They do have a track record of being very particular on points of policy, often to a fault (they are open about this in their statement), but that attribute can occasionally be a good counterpoint to some other members of the committee. It's not a deal-breaker for me, and it will probably be tempered by a term on ArbCom anyway.	Y Support
ToBeFree	ToBeFree is an energetic and friendly Wikipedian, and has done a good job as clerk. Like with Firefly, I think being a clerk is a great training ground for the committee, and as doing a job well usually means you can be trusted with bigger things, I'm happy to support.	Y Support
Wugapodes	This is a tough call. I have served with Wugs on the committee, and found them to be diligent, hardworking, and thoughtful. However, in a recent case, Wugapodes got into a lengthy back-and-forth with an editor they were proposing to ban, and it cast a shadow over the whole case. Unfortunately they fell into the trap of trying to convince the editor that they deserved to be banned, rather than trying to convince their voting colleagues, and it ended up appearing very personal in nature. I remain hopeful that Wugapodes has learned from this experience, but it still wouldn't hurt to have some new faces on the committee for a time.	N Oppose
Z1720	Z1720 is best known as a prolific content creator, and can usually be found working on the Main Page. He is also a regular at AE, which moderates some of the toughest disputes on the project. His experience in both of these areas will round out the 2024 committee nicely, and I'm happy to support.	Y Support