 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Go away! Don't read this! edit
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 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 eleven 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 six 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.
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/ACE2021, 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Banedon | Wants to make ArbCom like a court of law, which is a truly awful idea. |  Oppose |
|
| Beeblebrox | My support here will probably surprise some people – including me! I was originally going to oppose, but I just barely changed my mind. He is a long-time Arb seeking reelection, and a bit too much of a hanging judge for my taste. During the past year, I was one of his loudest critics for having commented at Wikipediocracy about ongoing cases. But I've read his answers to questions in this election, and I'm really persuaded that he has taken the criticism to heart, and it takes a substantive person to do that. It's not nothing. (To be clear, my concern about offsite comments is specifically about the appearance of impartiality, not anything else.) |  Support |
|
| Cabayi | An admin running for ArbCom for the first time. This is a very mild oppose, and I just think that other candidates have more of a track record in dealing with complex disputes | Oppose |
|
| Donald Albury | This is also a very mild oppose, and I could very well support. He is a long-time admin with a lot of content credibility, but I'd rather have someone who has stayed up-to-date with recent cases. | Oppose |
|
| Enterprisey | Yet another mild oppose. An admin who has more experience with gnomish work than with complex disputes. | Oppose |
|
| Guerillero | I strongly opposed last year, and my views have not changed. He was an Arb several years ago and is seeking to return to the Committee after having been a Clerk in the interim. As such, he may have a good likelihood of being elected. I hope that will not happen. Last year, while acting in an administrative capacity, and not as part of a conversation where editors were just kidding around, he dismissed another editor's concerns by simply saying "OK boomer". I asked him about this before starting my guide last year: [1]. His answer strikes me as ambivalent, and as at least partly blaming the target, instead of himself. Of course, anyone can have a one-off, but I think this is part of a pattern. When he was last on the Committee, he was one of two members responsible for drafting the decision in the GMO case, where I was the filing party and I saw up close what was going on. He completely bailed on the writing, leaving it entirely for the other member to do alone. Members of ArbCom need to take the role seriously and responsibly. He should not be reelected. | Oppose |
|
| Izno | An admin who would be new to the Committee. I've always regarded him as having good judgment, and I think he would be a good addition. | Support |
|
| Opabinia regalis | Along with Worm That Turned, one of my two most enthusiastic supports. She was an Arb a couple of years back, and is one of the smartest and most reasonable people we have. An outstanding candidate. | Support |
|
| Thryduulf | A former Arb, and someone who remains very attentive to what the Committee does. He was on the wrong side of the Fram case, but I generally respect his judgment. I've also noticed that the people at Wikipediocracy have been ragging on him. They sound to me like mean girls. | Support |
|
| Worm That Turned | As with Opabinia, one of my two strongest supports. He is a long-time current member of the Committee, and I suppose a case can be made that there should be more turnover. But he is consistently one of the most reasonable members of ArbCom, and he will unquestionably be a fine asset. | Support |
|
| Wugapodes | An admin who would be a new member. He has consistently impressed me with his judgment, and my support is enthusiastic. | Support |
And finally... edit
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, and to all of the outgoing Committee members!