User:Tryptofish/ACE2013

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. 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 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. 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. 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. I also care about being open to improving how the Committee works. User:Risker/Mailing list draft is a good example of what I mean by that last point.

Recommendations

Candidate	Comments	Recommendation
28bytes	I was very happy to see that 28bytes is a candidate. As an administrator and bureaucrat, he has a consistent track record of intelligent decisions, diplomatic communication with other editors, and lack of drama. This is exactly the kind of person who belongs on ArbCom.	Support
AGK	AGK is one of two sitting arbitrators seeking reelection. I have some discomfort with his drafting of the Tea Party decision, and he is sometimes needlessly thin-skinned in the face of the inevitable unjustified abuse that comes with the position. But he has worked tirelessly on the Committee, and has earned reelection. His judgment is usually on-point, and he is very good at communicating with the community.	Support
Arthur Rubin	Arthur Rubin is an intelligent and long-serving administrator. But there's a problem when the candidate's statement ends up including an assurance that he will recuse from his own appeal request. There is too much history of the candidate being sanctioned for his conduct during disputes. Also, skimpy answers to the questions to the candidate.	Oppose
Beeblebrox	I've crossed paths with Beeblebrox many times, and I genuinely like and respect him. I have no doubt that he is capable of being a good contributor to the Committee, and he is right about the need for more transparency. But he has a shoot-from-the-hip style that I think would make him less effective than other candidates. Arbs need to treat parties, and one another, as worthy of respect, and I worry that he would be too hasty and insufficiently diplomatic.	Oppose
Bwilkins	Another experienced and intelligent editor and administrator. However, he has a history of repeated instances of controversial actions as an admin, and I don't think that he would be as good as some other candidates at really listening to both sides of cases.	Oppose
David Gerard	He has a long history of sanctions for conduct, and this candidacy looks like an axe-to-grind. I read the very recent discussions about the Sandifer decision, and his views about it appear to me to be incorrect.	Oppose
Floquenbeam	Floquenbeam has plenty of the appropriate experience, and is intelligent and honest. His answers to questions are among the most thoughtful in this election. A very strong candidate.	Support
Gamaliel	A sensible and likable candidate, and I think he would be a good addition to the Committee.	Support
Georgewilliamherbert	Many of the other voter guides have noted the low level of recent activity. This criticism may be a bit unfair, since the candidate apparently had health problems this past year, and those problems are now over. I don't see any real problems in the candidate's views, and I suspect that he is perfectly capable of doing a good job. However, I feel that other candidates present a stronger set of credentials.	Oppose
GorillaWarfare	I'm very happy that GorillaWarfare is a candidate. She has a track record of good, low-drama work with advanced permissions, and I believe that she will bring a valuable perspective to the Committee.	Support
Guerillero	Guerillero is currently a clerk for ArbCom, and has done an excellent job as far as I can tell. But there are big differences between clerking and actually arbitrating. Although I like his ideas about adding non-arbs to the bans appeal subcommittee, the overall sense that I get from his comments is that of too much satisfaction with how the Committee currently operates, and not enough openness to improving operating procedures.	Oppose
Isarra	Unserious candidate statement, and the answers to questions are not particularly insightful.	Oppose
Kraxler	Although I try very hard not to judge any candidate on a single issue, I feel that his answer to my question was very incorrect, and that his understanding of the underlying issues is just not good enough.	Oppose
Ks0stm	Another clerk for the Committee. I've wavered a bit here, and I'm concerned from his answers that his opinions are still rather unformed, but I'm coming down on the side that he is ready and dedicated to being a positive contributor to the arbitration process.	Support
Kww	Kww is a hard-working administrator, and I appreciate his work. But he has a track record of repeatedly being tough in ways that make me worry about his ability to treat parties impartially, and to get along with the other Arbs.	Oppose
LFaraone	LFaraone holds some advanced permissions, and appears to be doing good work, drama-free. His statements seem quite sensible to me, and he is probably quite capable of being a good arbitrator. But what holds me back is a very limited amount of experience in complicated disputes. We know he can handle relatively clerk-like responsibilities well, and I suspect his judgment would be fine as an Arb, but other candidates have clearer track records in disputes.	Oppose
NativeForeigner	I might quibble with the writing of his candidate's statement, but NativeForeigner has a strong track record as an editor and in various advanced permissions. His answers to questions are very thoughtful. I think he would be an excellent Arb.	Support
RegentsPark	Last year, I voted for RegentsPark, and he was the only candidate that I supported who did not get elected. He holds a strong opinion against paid editing, a subject I think likely to come before the Committee soon, and I believe that his views, as one member within a committee, will be helpful. He is a smart and likable candidate, and I hope that he is elected this year.	Support
Richwales	Another smart and likable candidate. He holds strong views about civility. Although we all know how difficult it is to enforce civility, I think it will be an entirely good thing to have him, as one member of the committee, taking part in decisions, and it's not true that this would make the Committee the "civility police".	Support
Roger Davies	Roger Davies is the other sitting member seeking reelection, and he has amply earned reelection. I disagree with him on some details of the mailing list policy (and he knows it), but that doesn't change the fact that I recognize him as a very active Arb who has done a lot to improve the Committee.	Support
Seraphimblade	An experienced editor and administrator, with a good communication style and good ideas, and a track record with arbitration enforcement. His answers to questions are excellent. I think he would make a strong addition to the Committee.	Support
The Devil's Advocate	I got a laugh out of this edit summary: [1], and I thank the candidate for a very thoughtful answer to my question. But there is just too much history of being on the wrong side of disputes.	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!

This year, four sitting members of the Committee – Courcelles, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, and SilkTork – have completed their terms and are not seeking reelection. The entire community owes them the very deepest of thanks for their outstanding service.

And, although nobody asked me, there are quite a few Wikipedians who I think would make excellent Arbs in the future, and I wish that they would run. They are: Dennis Brown, Drmies, Fluffernutter, Hobit, JamesBWatson, Kudpung, MastCell, Mr. Stradivarius, NE Ent, Ponyo, Someguy1221, Thryduulf, and WereSpielChequers.