 | 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 ten 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.
This year, I've paid special attention to whether ArbCom might be getting too far out over their skis, although this is not a single-issue voter guide. The community puts a lot of faith in the Committee, and the community needs to be vigilant that the Committee does not get carried away with that. In this year's Holocaust in Poland case, ArbCom took the unusual step of making themselves the filing party (although there had been previous requests from the community, some public and some private), largely on the impetus of an offsite publication. And the case ended up being as much about mediating a content dispute as about conduct, contrary to what the community has empowered the Committee to do. I've asked the candidates about this on the "questions" page, and will link to their answers where relevant. (No one gave an answer that fully satisfied me, but I looked for an acknowledgement that there are problems with doing cases this way, except as a rarity.)
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/ACE2023, 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aoidh | Aoidh became an administrator just recently, and would be a new member of the Committee if elected. Although less experienced than some other candidates, he strikes me as a smart and reasonable person who would bring some fresh perspectives to the role. His thoughts on the issue of ArbCom accepting that case that I mention above, [1], are the single best answer that I got from any of the candidates. |  Support |
|
| Cabayi | Cabayi is currently an Arb, and is running for a second term. My support is a mild support, as in there really isn't anything wrong. I've noticed that he has a tendency to be among the last Arbs to post votes on the decision pages of cases, as though he might be waiting to see what others say, but there hasn't been anything particularly wrong in what he ultimately decides. For what it's worth, I disliked his answer to my question about that case, [2], because he mostly defended the decision without acknowledging the pitfalls. | Support |
response |
| Firefly | Firefly is an administrator and checkuser, as well as an ArbCom clerk. Current members of ArbCom and fellow clerks speak well of his work there: [3]. He is very well qualified, and would be a strong addition to the Committee. | Support |
|
| HJ Mitchell | HJ Mitchell is a long-time administrator and oversighter. He is smart and trustworthy, and has probably been around long enough to have accumulated some enemies, which should not be held against him. He is one of the stronger candidates this year. | Support |
|
| Maxim | This is my single very-strongest support this year, above all of the others in a generally good field. Maxim is a previous member of ArbCom, seeking to return to the Committee. He is also an experienced administrator and bureaucrat. When he started, I wasn't as impressed with his onsite presence as I was for some other members. But since then, other members of the Committee have spoken glowingly of his behind-the-scenes work, herding the |
Support |
|
| Robert McClenon | This is the longest of long shot candidates. Robert McClenon is the only non-administrator running, which likely means he will not be elected (at least if past history holds true). He has run twice before, unsuccessfully. I endorsed him last year, and I'm doing it again, on the strength of his long and impressive track record as the driving force behind WP:DRN. | Support |
|
| Sdrqaz | Sdrqaz ran unsuccessfully last year, shortly after becoming an administrator. A year later, he has more experience, and I think he is smart enough and articulate enough for the job. | Support |
|
| ToBeFree | ToBeFree is relatively young, but has four years of experience as an administrator, and is also an ArbCom clerk, which gives him plenty of experience. Current Arbs speak very highly of his work as a clerk, and his aptitude to be on the Committee: [5]. I've been impressed with his friendliness and kindness during cases, and I trust him to do a good job. | Support |
|
| Wugapodes | Some people can be very good content contributors, but just not be cut out for ArbCom. Wugapodes is a current member of ArbCom, seeking a second term. I supported him the first time around, and have come to regret it. He was one of the drafting Arbs in the Holocaust in Poland case, and it was largely his fault when ArbCom got in too deep. He is a graduate student working towards a PhD, [6], and perhaps that led him to treat the case as being about academia and content as much as about conduct. I asked him a specific question on the candidate's questions page, about a comment he made during the case, where he said to another editor, Sadly I don't have so much liberty. No, I'm resigned to sitting here stoically, my eyes held open, forced to read the same arguments over and over again for two months, unflinching. Anything less and I get called insanely biased or told to watch my tone. I should watch A Clockwork Orange, [7]. Look now at what he replied about it: [8]. Note how he recounts, quite accurately, all the going to a library, using translation tools, and compiling a bibliography and content summary. That's all very scholarly, and might be commendable for someone writing an article here. But what happened to ArbCom resolving conduct disputes, not content disputes? In no way do I question that he is a very smart person. But he is a poor fit temperamentally for ArbCom, and he turned that case into one of settling the scores in a content dispute that had spilled over into commentary in an academic journal, instead of what should have been a focus on editor conduct. (There should have been no need for a separate evidence summary page.) Regrettably, my oppose is a strong oppose. |
 Oppose |
|
| Z1720 | Z1720 is a fairly new administrator, but has been doing good work at Arbitration Enforcement. A plus is that he is also active at featured article review, and thus has demonstrated a good understanding of content work. In response to my question, he correctly noted that there were problems in the way that the journal article played into the case: [9]. He is clearly smart, articulate, and experienced in navigating complex disputes, and I'm happy to support. | Support |
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!