Before reading any guide to an election you must understand that they present only the inevitably biased opinions of the writer and are not a reliable source. Do your own research - read the candidate statements and questions, look at their contributions to the projects and make your decision based on that.
I believe that it is very significantly more important that we elect only arbitrators who will be good at the job than we fill all the vacancies. Conversely I will support everybody who I think will make a good arbitrator, regardless of how many vacancies there are. I do not support the idea of tactical voting for arbcom.
Introduction and a little about me and my biases
editEvery year since 2011 I've written my own private guide to help me decide who to vote for. This year I've decided to make the guide public for the first time, expanding it from just the summary section.
I served on the Arbitration Committee in 2015 and I've been an oversighter and functionary since. This means that I have some experience of what being on the committee is like in practice and the sorts of things arbitrators actually have to deal with.
My philosophy is that in everything we do on Wikipedia we should be putting the readers first. Every decision we take should be done with the aim of directly or indirectly improving their experience. This means:
- Writing, improving, and illustrating neutral encyclopaedic content
- Making that content easy to find and easy to read
- Removing inappropriate content (copyright violations, harassment, etc)
- Supporting the people who do those things (e.g. through tools, dealing with inappropriate behaviour, etc).
Everybody has different skills and it is unrealistic to expect everyone to be good at everything. An arbitrator's role is almost exclusively related to the last bullet point - behaviour, so how good or otherwise they are at the other things is largely irrelevant to me.
I don't care whether editors are paid or unpaid - if the content is neutral, reliable, DUE and isn't a copyright or fair use violation then it belongs in the encyclopaedia regardless of who wrote it. If the content does not meet those requirements then it doesn't belong, regardless of who wrote it. Similarly I do my best to ignore who proposes suggestions, proposals, etc. and support or oppose them based on their merits alone.
If you really care about the length of a short horizontal line or how something should be capitalised, then good for you, but do not disrupt the encyclopaedia to enforce your preferences. When reliable sources consistently treat a term as something to be capitalised, we should capitalise it regardless of whether we agree or disagree with their choice.
If there is a conflict between something that would benefit readers and something that would benefit editors, then in my view we should always choose the option that benefits readers. Similarly, we should always make tools that work with the encyclopaedia as it is rather than change the encyclopaedia to make programming tools easier.
I firmly believe that good contributions do not excuse bad behaviour. If there is a way to separate the two (e.g. topic bans) then we should try to do that, but nobody (including me) is irreplaceable. If their actions are disrupting the good functioning of the project and lesser sanctions have failed to stop that then we must not be afraid to block even good article writers. The longer disruption continues the more harm it causes.
Obviously I'm more likely to support people who share similar views and less likely to support those with opposite views. Bear that in mind when you read this guide, and remember to do the same when you read other guides - especially those that are opaque about their own biases.
Summary of recommendations
edit| Candidate | Recommendation | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Aoidh | Support | Competent and clearly understands nuance and the need to examine available information before making a decision. |
| Cabayi | Support | Not the strongest of arbs or best set of answers but good enough in both cases. |
| Firefly | Support | Competent, understands the role and has realistic objectives |
| HJ Mitchell | Support | Good admin and oversighter, understands the position |
| Maxim | Support | Good former arb, great answers to questions |
| Robert McClenon | Oppose | Failed RFA twice, not the best in admin spaces |
| Sdrqaz | Oppose | Not impressed with the answers to questions, especially related to teamwork |
| ToBeFree | Support | Good as a clerk. On balance the good answers outweigh the poor ones. |
| Wugapodes | Support | Good track record, great answers to questions |
| Z1720 | Oppose | Not convinced they understand the role |
Extended comments
editAoidh: Support
editAoidh isn't someone I'm terribly familiar with, but their candidate statement and answers to the questions fully convince me that they are exactly the right sort of person to have on the Committee. They clearly understand the importance of nuance, the importance of not passing judgement without examining the evidence and recognise that sometimes private information means you cannot fairly judge the outcome of a decision made using it.
Cabayi: Support
editCabayi has been a pretty middle-of-the-pack arbitrator, and their answers to the questions are also neither the best nor the worst of the set. Fortunately we do not need to rank the candidates against one another, only determine whether they are good enough to serve on the Committee and I have to conclude that Cabayi is.
Firefly: Support
editThey are competent in important aspects of the committee's scope, they clearly understand the role and some of the challenges associated with it. Their answers to questions 4 and 6 are among the best, especially in the acknowledgement that it's important things don't fall between the cracks and languish indefinitely. Overall I'm completely satisfied they will make a good arbitrator.
HJ Mitchell: Support
edit- Disclosure: I'm good friends with Harry in real life
Harry is a good administrator and a good oversighter who is not afraid to make difficult decisions based on what they believe is the best outcome for the project as a whole. They will positively hate the more bureaucratic aspects of the role, and burnout from that is a possibility - especially if other members of the committee are big fans of the paperwork - but its a risk that I'm willing to take as they aren't the sort of person to leave others in the lurch so they'd do their best to stick it out until the next election. If the workflow improvements Wugapodes details in his answer come to pass then this will improve the chances of Harry serving a full term.
Maxim: Support
editMaxim was a very good arbitrator during their three years on the committee, based on my own observations and on the endorsements of their colleagues. Their answers to the questions are top notch and just add to my confidence that they will be a good arbitrator again in 2024 and 2025.
Robert McClenon: Oppose
editWhile not being an admin is not an absolute barrier to my supporting someone for arbcom, failing your most recent RFA is. Additionally, I've interacted with Robert in various administrative parts of the wiki and I'm not convinced that I would support them at RFA, especially after they offered to reclose the Required disclosure for admin paid advising RFC after having expressed support for the original close that was overturned with near unanimous consensus, despite stating they hadn't read it in detail (their answer to my question about this doesn't fill me with confidence they understand why it was an issue). The answers to questions asked also do not fill me with confidence that they would be a good arbitrator - I get the impression (as with a lot of their dispute resolution work) that they have a strong sense that their opinion is the right one and that other opinions aren't really relevant to arriving at the correct outcome. I also sense a desire for speed over accuracy or fairness - I recall someone (I thought it was HJ Mitchell, but they don't remember saying that so it was almost certainly someone else) describing their attitude at AE as being "shoot first, ask questions later" which is another point to this.
Sdrqaz: Oppose
editI expected to be supporting Sdrqaz, I encouraged them to run for RFA and voted for them at last year's election. This year however I'm unimpressed with the candidate statement and unimpressed with some of the answers to the questions, particularly regarding teamwork. Their non-answers regarding sharing personal information with other committee members give me the impression that they don't understand that arbcom is not a collection of individuals having academic discussions in the abstract but a small team of individuals working together to examine evidence and determine the best way forwards.
ToBeFree: Support
editBased on their performance as a clerk and my interactions with them around the project, I expected TBF to be a very strong candidate. It thus comes as something of a disappointment to see the weak answers to some questions, especially those related to transparency. However, some of the other answers are stronger and that combined with their committee-adjacent experience and my other knowledge of them lead me to, on balance, weakly support.
Wugapodes: Support
editWugapodes has been a good arbitrator for the past two years, making reasoned decisions based on a fair reading of the evidence presented. Their answers to the questions are the best of any I've read this year (yet) - in particular the response to microbiologyMarcus' question about the Law and Social Enquiry article is superb. They clearly indicate they know what they are signing up for, why they are signing up for it, and what they hope to achieve. The ideas and plans for improving workflow they detail are excellent and if they can be implemented everyone will benefit. I also like the idea of a block appeals committee (I was sceptical about abolishing the old BASC before actively deciding what would replace it), although details need to be worked out first. The answer to BilledMammal's questions further illustrate they have the best interests of the project at heart.
Z1720: Oppose
editZ1720 is an editor who I don't think I've even heard of before seeing their candidacy, I have no memory of interacting with them at all. My first impression of their answers to questions is that they are very thin. They know the policies, but I'm not getting much of a sense of how they would interpret them or what their decision making priorities are. I also get the impression that while they've read the policies, etc, they've not read (or possibly not digested) the accounts of existing arbitrators about what the actual job entails. In conclusion I'm weakly opposing as I'm not convinced they understand the role fully. A more mature candidacy next year could very well be successful though.