 | Candidates should not have their own guides. | |
Hello!! I am MJL, and I love democracy! I think these guides are really neat, and this is the first election year I have been active enough to meaningfully comment on. There are currently 22 active candidates with a lot of good people to choose from.
- Explainaton
I am more interested in evaluating the narrative that drives each user to run and then commenting on that. It's nice to try and hear what each candidate has to say, and I would like to believe I am moderately successful at at least trying.
- Criteria
I explicitly have no criteria for judging candidates.
- Disclaimer
I only plan on evaluating candidate statements and not the question phases. Therefore, once the nomination period is over, this guide will not be updated after its finished except I might change the final verdict to reflect a change in my own personal position.
- Order
Candidates are ordered from the date they announced. Those who announced earliest get the best spot. Candidates who have withdrawn will be removed from the guide.
Candidates
edit- Key
| My term | Other guides |
|---|---|
| Complete support | Golden ticket |
| Support | Support |
| Mostly positive | Weak support |
| Moral support | - |
| Mixed | Neutral |
| Some negative | Weak oppose |
| Oppose | Oppose |
| Protest oppose | Strong oppose |
I would call Gadfium the "common sense" candidate; full of in depth experiences and free of controversy. He has been around since March 2004 and has been an admin since December 2005. Gadfium clearly cares a ton about this project (having taken an early retirement to edit more). All this is true, and I had no clue who he was before his candidacy here. Talk about flying under the radar!
Gadfium's interest in running comes from the FramBan issue. He was one of the admins who resigned in protest (since restored), but he points out that he still kept up editing writing "... my concern was with the management rather than [Wikipedia's] goal." Gadfium says he was rather impressed with how the community fought for greater community autonomy at the time, and he came out of the incident believing in Wikipedia more. His intent for running is, simply put, to keep up that work or at least give voters a few more options at the ballot box.
He ultimately comes across as a salt of the earth kind of guy. Part of his platform his making sure the committee gives good faith to those who are more willing to lend it to others. He also plans on staying really well connected to the community, and it is pretty difficult to imagine Gadfium doing anything else.
Verdict: Support.
This is actually my second review for Richwales. The first one I wrote was too negative. My main issue was, and still is, I am not sure what kind of user Richwales wants us to see him as. He does a very poor job at targeting any particular segment of the community to appeal to.
For example, take this statement, "I am a strong believer in Wikipedia's core policies — especially the NPOV and NPA policies. I believe in civility, though my time spent here has helped me to understand that disruptive activity can be a real problem even if editors remain superficially polite, and I am really not as concerned about 'nasty words' as I am about battleground conduct, POV-pushing, and undisclosed paid editing.
There are some editors, like myself, who care a lot about the civility policy, so these users are known to respond well to candidates who affirm that policy in their statements. Rich does that, but then immediately undercuts it by trying to appeal to the other side of that debate. The problem is that he just called NPA/Civility a core policy, and that doesn't fly to people who think of the civility policy as too restrictive. Hey, maybe Rich is just a moderate on this issue. That would be fine in isolation, but then maybe pick a different issue to run on if you are not really all that passionate about this one (possibly?).
The other problem I had was that he did not mention the inactivity thing, and I am glad he addressed it in his addendum. It shows he is willing to at least listen to people's concerns. That is always nice.
Verdict: Mixed.
It is rather hard to evaluate WTT's candidate statement because it is extremely apologetic in tone. You would think this guy had been serving on the House Un-American Activities Committee for the last two years from the way he sounds. He gives his credentials (which are extensive), but really that is about it. He says things this year for the committee were unprecedented, so their response could have been much worse. On the face of it, that's true. He also says he wants to both provide institutional memory and help shake-up the committee... with the latter being incredibly odd to hear from someone who has already served out two full terms.
Voters are left to only wonder (1) why he is running again, (2) what his priorities are, and (3) how his record fits into things. He invites people to ask him these questions, but something as simple as the first question should really be answered in the statement. This does not reflect well on him, and my personal guess is WTT just got burnt out after 2 years but is not ready to close up shop just yet.
Verdict: Some negative.
We can now confirm there are two realities; our own, and whatever reality Hawkeye is in. Say whatever you want about him, this dude either has a lot of guts or is completely oblivious. Either way, I am a sucker for an underdog story, so let's just evaluate his candidate statement on his own terms.
Hawkeye7 is, first and foremost, an excellent content creator. He almost has as many feature articles under his belt as Cas Liber (who come to think of it didn't include that statistic in his candidate statement). He also is a rather good WikiProject coordinator (WP:MILHIST being probably one of the best run WikiProjects on the site). For his work, he has been rewarded with numerous accolades. The first half of his case to elect him is simply that he is a good Wikipedian (including never having been blocked or banned throughout his time here). The second half of his statement is focused on his various activities IRL promoting Wikimedia. Ultimately, he sticks to his message rather well and says in easy-to-understand terms that he wants to be a voice for content creators on the committee. Over all, it's a serviceable message, and that'd be the end of the story if not for a few minor details...
The problems of his candidacy do not come from what he said but from what he didn't say. As is apparent to everyone but Hawkeye, he's seriously the only candidate running this year that is not currently an admin. That not being bad enough... it's because he was desysopped by Arbcom. Oof. To make matters worse for him, he offered himself up to the community to give him back the bit, and the community did not exactly say yes. Given all of that... why did he run?
The unspoken truth about Hawkeye7 is that he actually is an incredibly viable candidate. The format of this election is extremely more favorable to him than his recently RfA. First, RfA is not an election but a public discussion centered around building consensus which means that a significant enough minority of people who oppose you at an RfA can tank the whole thing. To just get a 1-year term, a candidate only needs more than 50% of the votes. Despite being on the "wrong side" of the FramBan-issue and having numerous missteps, he almost had that in his RFA. It's not impossible to imagine people not willing to publicly vote for him later doing so privately. He will win if he ends up the candidate that voters just hate the least.
Verdict: Moral support.
Cas Liber is an interesting case because, while not an incumbent, he clearly seeks a win by drawing a distinction between himself, as someone who has previously served, and the others in the race with less experience. In the wake of the FRAMBAN, Mr. Liber paints a picture of himself as the best stalwart defender of the Five Pillars against encroaching attacks from outside forces. As it goes, he is a content creator, wants to focus on evidence, and envisions a strong oversight role for the committee moving forward.
His message gets muddied a bit at one point, though. He mentions an experience where he was consulted to form a "Trust and Safety Committee" years ago and what it may have looked like. However, he leaves open the question of what he actually wants the role to be for current the Trust and Safety office. Hopefully, at some point he will reveal that during the campaign.
Verdict: Support.
As a previous one-termer, Thryduulf is in the awkward position of not being a complete insider while also having leagues of experience more than most members of this community. What he does have to his advantage is a decent record of communication, and he should milk that 'til the cows come home. Happily enough, this is something he does in his statement. You can say a lot about Chris McKenna, but holy cow can he hammer home a good campaign message. He makes several commitments that no request will go unresponded to for more than a week if he is around, and that he has the experience to know how to prod in all the right ways.
He ends on a strong note saying that priority 1 is what's best for the project and priority 2 is a civil environment. A necessary corollary to this is being willing to back the philosophy with action, which he assures voters he is willing to exactly do. Chris finally concludes there with saying that he believes no editor should be unblockable, and that also includes himself (presumably even as a member of the committee).
Finally, I gotta say two last things which are really remarkable about Thryduulf's statement. First, he is the only candidate to explicitly claim in their election statement to be a daily reader of Wikipedia. This clues you in how he remains so engaged with the site; he is constantly reading articles to get info on the topics he's curious about. Secondly, he BEAUTIFULLY includes this in his declaration, "As an Oversighter I have already signed the confidentiality agreement..." [emphasis added] There are sometimes important facts that are good for people to do but have less to do with your message. Throwing them in like this when you can for what would normally be unnoteworthy boilerplate stuff is pretty cool.
Verdict: Support.
Even more contrast here among our candidates with Bradv. He's both a new admin (like Barkeep) but a highly experienced insider as a clerk. Brad ultimately casts his lot with being a "fresh face" who just so happens to have a ton of institutional knowledge. For the transparency vs privacy issue, he seems to favor the latter more than the former, but he waffles quite a bit about it. His ultimate position appears to be the committee should be transparent all the time, except for when it can't, but since they were transparent before people will trust that they had a good reason to be secretive about it. Hopefully, voters will inquire as to when absolute transparency is a must and what exactly would be the exception to this rule. Really, he probably should have argued against the premise instead and just said that every case needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis using the committee's best judgement rather than advocating for sweeping generalizations of increased transparency (which he admits is a limiting factor).
On the flipside, Brad does not mince his words whatsoever when it comes to describing what he feels the role T&S should play; "The Trust & Safety department has an important role in issues such as child protection and paid editing, but concerns about regular editors need to handled within the editing community." It is a very principled stance that gives you a better picture of who he is and what his tenure might be like.
Interestingly enough, he brings up the issue of committee attrition while also committing to stay engaged throughout the term (he had a short retirement during the FramBan). This is where his message starts to really come together. He ultimately is a believer in the committee but says it has two major problems: (1) it's been understaffed, and (2) its mandate has been encroached upon by T&S to some degree. He thinks Arbcom should stand for the community, and he believe it ultimately will if given enough support. Voters can elect Bradv to the or not, but he is still ready to serve in any capacity either way.
Verdict: Mostly positive.
Barkeep is an excellent foil to Cas Liber; he is new, articulate, and message-driven. The theme of Barkeep's campaign is that he is running because he believes in Wikipedia. Barkeep stands out a lot in this regards because he fully believes in the current process and its capability to have a positive impact. In only a few words, Barkeep49 makes clear the distinction between T&S and the committee is that the latter is better to suited to tackle enwiki's behavioral problems. Not having the traditional experience of being a long-term administrator or superuser, while also not running on a reform agenda, leaves Barkeep little to run on besides one single quality: insight. To him, it can be as simple as; he has some, and he'll withstand the criticism to consistently provide it.
Of course, Barkeep throws in his content work as well. It should be obvious that if he didn't have 20+ GA-class articles behind him, that his message of believing in Wikipedia would fall completely flat. From the get-go, Barkeep makes clear that he is not a passive cheerleader for Wikipedia but instead an active project participant. He has contributed with a cool head in some pretty controversial discussions, and the newly-minted administrator generally always has come out unscathed. Barkeep takes Wikipedia seriously enough that, despite his inexperience, he says he is willing to put himself on the line by running as a candidate. It is a pretty compelling campaign message and rings more true the better you know him.
Verdict: 
Complete support.
Admittedly... I am still pretty new to this community, so Isarra's perennial run is still pretty charming and refreshing to me. I just mentioned in regards to Lord Roem that the biggest in a race like this is getting lost in the crowd. I am rather confident that will never be the case with Isarra! I would say the closest comparison to them would be the one-and-only Vermin Supreme. Really, Isarra represents a time-honored tradition of a candidate who is completely honest with voters and makes clear that they know as little as we do about our governing system.
Thus far, Isarra is the only candidate to feature an image in their 2019 campaign statement. They are also the only candidate who has implied more discretion should be given to Trust & Safety. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Verdict: Moral support.
Both the two candidates running for reelection are in a uniquely difficult spot to argue why they should be returned. Katie successfully navigates this minefield by stating upfront why she is running. First is a compelling policy reason: the harassment RFC which will only commence until after her current term comes to an end. Second, and this is rightfully something that should be pointed out; the lack of other women candidates. There is literally only one other female candidate, and it's literally a joke candidate. Oof. It's not exactly the 50/50 gender equality that has unintentionally been achieved with the current formation of the committee.
Katie explains she has worked hard for the last two years and has ultimately tried to hold true to her original campaign promises. Of course she has faltered, but she will keep trying if re-elected. It is an ultimately compelling campaign statement for an incumbent. There is not a lot to work with after what the committee has been through.
Verdict: Support.
It feels incredibly odd to call Xeno a non-admin candidate, but that is what he technically is. He principally resigned his admin bit in protest, but he chose to still remain a bureaucrat. I would say that is the most fascinating aspects of his campaign for a variety of reasons. Funnily enough, he links to this thread in his archives which might as well be a who's-who since 5 different candidates had commented on it.
There really isn't a ton to say about Xeno based off his candidate statement, so I'll revisit this candidate later.
Upon re-reading it, I remembered why I like Xeno as a user: he is extremely helpful in pointing things out. He mentions at the end that he found a pretty significant error in the editintro and links to the thread with more details. There is the strong impression that he act in the same way as a member of the committee, so it is easy to tell why his perspective will be of value there.
Verdict: Support.
To simply put it, Newyorkbrad is the Hillary Clinton of Wikipedia. From what I can tell, he has the most experience out of everyone running. He is running on his experience (though he throws in a half-baked line about rekindling his memories of being a freshman committee member). He says he did not want to run again, but does anyone really believe that? Of course he wants to run, but he probably just figured the community would be sick of him by now. If you voluntarily do something like this for 8 years, you want to do it no matter what you really say. His candidacy is only viable because the FramBan stuff happened while he wasn't on the committee which caused people to almost immediately cry out, "If only New York Brad was here!" Now here he is springing to the call.
Don't get me wrong; I actually like the guy. He has an affinity for public service unlike most of us and is willing to speak his mind. The problem is that if we elect to put him on the committee, he is going to, by the very nature of these things, pretty much silence all the newbies who are nominally his equals. I highly encourage Brad to reconsider his campaign here and just ask himself if he is going to be the community's crutch forever.
Verdict: Oppose.
The Rambling Man
editThis candidate caught me completely off guard when he announced since he is actively maintaining a voting guide. I do not really think it is fair that he is allowed to have a rival voting guide while remaining a candidate, and I refuse to give TRM a review until he removes it from the listing such as Kudpung has done.
Verdict: PROTEST OPPOSE.
Disclaimer: I personally encouraged this candidate to run again for the committee this year.
David Fuchs makes the reasonable point that with 11 open seats, voters are going to need a lot of good candidates to be able to choose from. The underlying theme of his campaign seems to be a back-to-basics approach. While Wikipedia may have changed a lot over the years, its underlying goals have not; therefore, the committee's general role does not need to change as much as it needs to be run more efficiently. He holds up Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia as the guide to how he thinks the committee should review cases.
Verdict: Support.
When the city is burning, you are going to need at least one halfway decent fire fighter. That is the thought that goes through my head as I read Beeblebrox's statement. Beeblebrox has been burned before by this job having served before, but they have discovered that their ready to wade right into the fires and take the heat once more.
That is all fine and dandy, but what did this user actually believe? It beats me. Besides a line about remembering there is another human being on the other side of the keyboard, voters are really not given much indication as to how Beeblebrox will vote on most issues besides them saying "I believe my record speaks for itself," which really... it does not speak for itself. How did you vote and why? If I look into it, am I going to see collaboration or confrontation? How proud are you of your own record? That last question is the one I need to know the most as a voter, and I can never find that out just by reviewing your record.
Verdict: Mixed.
Llywrch is an interesting candidate to see run because of their unmatched length of editing. When he was elected in an RFA, he had a total of five votes and no opposes. He correctly notes that the committee kinda only works with the same group of people doing all the heavy lifting constantly, so he is offering himself up for relief on that front. One might wonder why he wouldn't simply offer to become a clerk, but maybe that is something will be revealed later.
The views that Llywrch hold on what the committee does is pretty simple: the committee ends disputes. It should not set policy or anything, and he is skeptical of T&S taking over because they would be in more of a position to do this.
Verdict: Mostly positive.
In rather surreal to see Maxim putting themselves through a run for an arbcom, but here we go! First thing that should be noted, is that the events of the FramBan unfortunately hit Maxim pretty dang hard as recorded in Reversion of office actions, Maxim had to team up with Primefac to make the impossible decision to re-desysop Fram in what most imagined was not a particularly fun moment to say the least. The whole thing weighed pretty heavily on Maxim, and they took a break from the project.
Now Maxim is back and better than ever by the looks of that campaign statement!! While seemingly having unlimited credibility with the moderates of FramBan (my term for the folks who agreed with the WMF on the substance of the Fram issue but in no way agreed with how the handled it or eroded community norms) by making the tough call to keep Fram without adminship until more of the facts could be revealed and Arbcom can do its thing. The hardliners have a bit to chew on as well with Maxim as well. Taking a page out of Bradv's book, Maxim says the only role T&S should be playing is in child protection and legal matters.
Being a good bureaucrat and being a committee member is very similar in may regards (regrettably, I did not touch on this much with Xeno's review). Maxim says they're running to maintain community autonomy and that they have experience necessary for the task. In no doubt in my mind do I disbelieve a word said in this statement, and I am personally glad to see Maxim make such a strong comeback while re-entering the community.
Verdict: Support.
SoWhy is another example of someone who is considered a really good admin running for the arbcom this time around. I think it is an interesting approach to start off with your content credentials when that isn't really something you identify with nor are particularly known for. I know there is at least a good-sized contingent of content folks who would say that, even if you are not exactly one of them, you should still go through all the processes just to see what it is like.
I really do not know if I have a verdict I can give here. He did not reveal any important position or platform in his statement. His arguement is not one of the issues, which will always remain topical, but SoWhy argues his candidacy from a position of good judgement and character. It really is hard to find someone who would say he shines above others in this regard. I think SoWhy might just be a candidate you have to get to know before you vote for him or not. That probably is just it.
Verdict: Mostly positive.
I am happy to report Kudpung has removed his voters guide from the listing, so it is time for his review.
It was a rather surprise to Kudpung run for this spot since he report high levels of satisfaction in his current role. He is currently a pure admin and the mastermind behind New pages patrol. He is actually not running on any particular platform (explicitly), and does not plan on making any reforms if elected. It is an unusual play to see to say the least, and I am not sure how supportive I am of it. Platforms are not for their own sake; they give voters something to measure your conduct up to for proper accountability.
The two parts of Kudpung's main concern, and thus why he is running, are equity and expediency. In the former, he offers himself as a candidate with good judgement which has come from a lifetime of experiences in a variety of countries. As for expediency, he is probably one of the most active admins on the site, and he'll likely take that with him to Arbcom.
Verdict: Mixed.
As a fellow member of the three-letter user cabal, I enthusiastically support DGG even though there is no cabal. In all seriousness, I do have nothing but high opinion of DGG for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that he once took the time to say I shouldn't give up on being an admin which meant a lot coming from such a highly decorated user. I bring this up because when he says that he tries "...to give realistic advice to new editors..." Well, I know it's true because that was me during the linked thread! I'm now an admin on sco.wiki, and I have yet to cause any major problems there.
With my biases kept in mind, I consider DGG in a great position to argue he is a public advocate which seems to be where he is going with his candidate statement. According to DGG, things only change after years of sustained effort, and he offers up some examples to that effect. On the transparency issue, he has been favor increasing the amount of public votes that are held rather than votes by email. He is one of the few candidates currently running on ensuring the committee rules to fix systematic problems as well as individual cases.
Verdict: Support.
Calidum
editSimilar to TRM, I will not give this candidate a review unless Calidum delists his own voting guide such as Kudpung has done. Among the many reasons they are a bad idea, candidates having voting guides unnecessarily detracts from the ones which are written by third-parties like this one.
Verdict: PROTEST OPPOSE.
This is a pretty confused candidate statement tbh. My impressions of Enterprisey are honestly pretty positive, but I do not think he did himself any justice here. He is the kind of guy who stays up until 4am writing scripts for the community to use (true story). I really cannot think of a reason he chose not to reveal any of that passion here in his campaign statement.
Much like Laser Brain, he could have ran as a good outsider. He muddled his message a lot, and that was an avoidable problem. If he had come up with at least one interesting anecdote, then maybe it would be different...
Either way, we get userscripts.
Verdict: Mixed.
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |