User:Tryptofish/ACE2015

Go away! Don't read this!

You 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. 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; 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 very 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. I'm not going to qualify 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 should. There are nine seats to be filled in this election. I don't try to support exactly nine 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 more candidates than there are open positions.) Consequently, you will see that I oppose some candidates, not because I think that they would do a bad job, but because I think that other candidates would do better.

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 also care about being open to improving how the Committee works. I think that's especially important this year, because we are at a time when there needs to be some self-examination about how ArbCom works. I have increasingly become convinced that members should not serve too many consecutive terms, although it can be fine to come back after being off the Committee for a while. This year, I think it is necessary that there be significant turnover, so I am holding incumbents to an especially high standard, although I consider every candidate as an individual. I've recently noticed a dismaying tendency for ArbCom to see cases in terms of whether or not they see diffs that reveal obvious incivility, without considering how a decision will impact the overall editing environment, thereby missing chronic problems with POV. Consequently, I also care about willingness to consider the evidence, to not act rashly, and to listen to feedback and change one's mind.

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/ACE2015, 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

Candidate	Comments	Recommendation
AKS.9955	An editor with relatively little experience in dispute resolution, and not qualified to serve on ArbCom. Candidate has withdrawn.	Oppose Withdrew.
Callanecc	Callanecc is an administrator who has had a lot of experience as an ArbCom clerk, and I believe that he has gained a good understanding of what does, and does not, work during arbitration. He has demonstrated good sense as an administrator, and he has my trust.	Support
Casliber	Casliber used to be on the Committee a while back, and is running to return to it after some years away. He was one of the most sensible members of the Committee, and I believe he will continue to be so. He is an accomplished content editor, and can be expected to really look at the evidence. I also like that he can understand scientific source material, something that has been sorely lacking on the present Committee.	Support
Drmies	If someone were to ask me to select the one candidate I am supporting with the very highest enthusiasm – I would pick two: Drmies and Opabinia regalis. Honestly, when I saw Drmies' name appear on the candidate list, I did a fist-pump! He is one of the most consistently sensible administrators on the project today. He has excellent instincts about when to be harsh, and when to be lenient, and he can see right through BS. He will be a superb member of ArbCom.	Support
Gamaliel	Gamaliel recently wrote a Signpost commentary about some of the problems that face good editors here, and he nailed it. He is an administrator who has taken an interest in harassment, and his judgment has been spot-on, even if it troubles some users who ought to be troubled. I trust him.	Support
GorillaWarfare	This is tough. GorillaWarfare is an incumbent Arb seeking a second term, and I like her personally. She recently posted a harrowing account of the harassment she has suffered as a young female editor, and it moved me deeply. I'm tempted to support just for that. But she has shown inconsistent and sometimes impulsive judgment as an Arb, getting herself into a position where she will have to recuse on just those cases where she ought to be having the greatest impact. In one decision this year, her colleagues found that her actions as an individual administrator were "sub-optimal". Some other members of ArbCom have complained privately that she has not been holding up her share of duties. I think it would be best for her to take some time away from the Committee.	Oppose	response
Hawkeye7	He has been sanctioned in the past by ArbCom, and I am not convinced that he has really put it behind him. He is smart and has some very good insights into ArbCom's shortcomings, but I doubt that he could function well as one of the members of the Committee.	Oppose
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz	His candidate statement self-portrays him as a sort of grouchy old man, and it's rather accurate. He tends to be more of a critic than a problem solver. I tend to think that he would not decrease the amount of conflict in disputes brought before the Committee.	Oppose
Keilana	She has had a broad range of experiences on-Wiki, and she will bring a good perspective to the Committee. Bonus points for studying science. I'd be pleased to see her join the Committee, and I advise her to anticipate that the time commitment will be large.	Support
Kelapstick	He is an experienced administrator, and fully qualified to be on ArbCom, so this is only the mildest of opposes. He strikes me as a nice guy, with an easygoing demeanor. One could argue that this would improve the overall tone of the Committee, but I worry that he might get drowned out by stronger personalities there, and that he might find it hard to deal with the anger directed at Arbs. There are other candidates who are just a little better suited to the role.	Oppose
Kevin Gorman	I have worked with Kevin in the past on class editing issues, and I consider him to be a Wiki-friend. He very recently helped me with something in a very kind way, for which I will be eternally grateful, and that makes me feel like a jerk for turning around and opposing him here. And some of the things he has been criticized for in other guides are bogus. But he has had a tendency to shoot from the hip as an administrator, and he will be seen by many editors as non-neutral. I think he could grow into the role in time, but not now.	Oppose	response
Kirill Lokshin	I have wavered over this decision more than for any other candidate on this page. Kirill was an Arbitrator in the past, and he came back from a period of relative inactivity to issue a block that has become very controversial. Some editors will see their vote on him as a referendum on that block, and it's a reasonable rationale for opposing. However, I remember him as having been a sensible Arb in the past, and I do not like to judge anyone by an isolated event. I like that he is prepared to take an active role in drafting decisions, a big problem with the present Committee. I also strongly support his idea that all proposed decisions should be presented for the first time in draft form on the Workshop page. Taking these things together, I support.	Support
Kudpung	I like Kudpung, even though he can be gruff. Underneath it, he really is considerate and thoughtful. He has a lot of administrative experience. He has said that he does not plan to initiate reforms of the Committee, but I trust that he will not stand in the way.	Support
LFaraone	An incumbent Arb, running for reelection. I thank him for a very good answer to my question on the questions to candidate page. He has done a pretty good job, although he has been relatively less active in communicating with the community, and his votes on cases often come without rationales. He has relatively little content experience. I think it would be best for someone else to take his place.	Oppose
Mahensingha	An inexperienced editor, who lacks the experience to serve on ArbCom.	Oppose
MarkBernstein	He is a smart guy, with some good insights into some of the problems on Wikipedia, but his candidate statement displays the wrong temperament for an Arbitrator (and frankly scared me a little).	Oppose
NE Ent	An non-administrator who should be one of the first non-administrators on ArbCom. Frankly, he knows more about dispute resolution and governance than most administrators do. His judgment is consistently excellent, and he does not have an inflated opinion of himself. I really hope he gets elected. (His candidate statement is blue-linked from the main page, and is well worth reading.)	Support
Opabinia regalis	First, see what I said about Drmies. Then, vote support. She will be a superb Arbitrator. She is a scientist and content editor, and ArbCom needs this perspective. More importantly, she is an administrator who has excellent judgment, with a good sense of the appropriate level of action or discretion. Her presence will elevate the Committee.	Support
Rich Farmbrough	A nice guy, but essentially a protest vote, rather than someone who would work productively with the other members of the Committee, and it is a Committee. He recently failed a reconfirmation RfA, and I felt like the messages he sent to the editors who had participated in it were passive-aggressive.	Oppose
Samtar	A very kind and thoughtful editor, but less experienced than many of the other candidates. Candidate has withdrawn.	Oppose Withdrew.
Thryduulf	The only incumbent whom I am supporting this year. He is running after a single-year term, and he has earned reelection. I tend to agree with his judgment. He does a particularly good job of communicating with members of the community, and he has an admirable capacity to reconsider his opinion if given a good reason. I think that he can come out from under the shadow of some members who are retiring, and I would like to see him do so.	Support
Timtrent	A non-administrator, and probably a long-shot, but I'm firmly in the support column. (He said that he is unfamiliar with Workshop pages. If elected, he'll get a crash course.) I've edited with him on pages where sensitivity to content issues is required, and I've been impressed. He knows his way around a content dispute, and he will bring the right attitude to the Committee. Candidate has withdrawn.	Support Withdrew.
Wildthing61476	An articulate and thoughtful candidate, with a lot of editing experience, and who gave very good answers to questions, but I think that other candidates have more experience.	Oppose

And finally...

Being 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!