User:Tryptofish/ACE2025
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
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 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 nine seats to be filled in this election, with twelve candidates running. I usually 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'm supporting eight candidates for the nine 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'd rather have a seat left unfilled, than have someone elected who should not have been.)
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/ACE2025, 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
| Candidate | Comments | Recommendation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aoidh | Aoidh is currently on the Committee, and is seeking a second term. I consider him to be smart and dependable, and am happy to endorse him again. |  Support | |
| Asilvering | Asilvering is an administrator and checkuser, who would be a new member of the Committee. He would bring some new blood to the group, and strikes me as having excellent judgment, so I'm supporting with high enthusiasm. | Support | |
| Clovermoss | Oh, I wish I didn't have to do this, for many reasons. In fact, I came very close to making this my first "neutral" in all my years of writing these guides. Clovermoss is an administrator and former Wikimedian of the Year, and she has many admirable qualities. But anyone voting here would be well advised to read this first. Being on ArbCom strikes me as being a tough job, with a lot of incoming anger, criticism, and complaints. Based on things that Clovermoss has said about herself, I fear that she will be burned out by the experience, and I wouldn't want that to happen to her, or to anyone. |  Oppose | |
| Geni | This is a very mild oppose. Geni is a very long-time administrator, and would be new to the Committee. Based on recent years, I don't really see any problems. But going back some time, there has been enough controversy to give me pause: please see User talk:Geni#Please resign and the two sections that follow. A case can be made that having gone through these experiences, a person will have learned and gained perspective. But I end up feeling that there are other, stronger candidates in this election. | Oppose | |
| Girth Summit | Girth Summit is an experienced administrator and checkuser, and is well-qualified to become a new member of the Committee. I have long known him to be very sensible and trustworthy, and this is one of my more enthusiastic supports this year. | Support | |
| Guerillero | Guerillero was on ArbCom some years ago, and has repeatedly been an unsuccessful candidate in subsequent years. And I've been opposing each year, too. He has a repeated history of abrasiveness that continues to sit badly with me. I feel that someone facing sanctions from ArbCom would not be able to trust him to judge fairly and with sensitivity. | Oppose | Reply by Izno |
| Hawkeye7 | Hawkeye7 is a former administrator who was desysopped, and has run unsuccessfully for ArbCom a couple of times before. He is an impressive content contributor and clearly a very smart person, but I don't think he would be a good match for the Committee. | Oppose | Reply by Hawkeye7 |
| HJ Mitchell | HJ Mitchell is currently on ArbCom, and is running for a second term. He has been doing an excellent job, and has been particularly strong at communicating with the community. This is one of my most enthusiastic supports this year. | Support | |
| HouseBlaster | HouseBlaster is an administrator and ArbCom clerk, seeking a first term on the Committee itself. As it happens, I opposed his RfA, because I was concerned by what I saw as a rigidity about rules. I feel strongly that anyone holding advanced permissions here needs to have enough flexibility and sensitivity to recognize editors' personal value. But in the time since, I've been very impressed with his ability to learn from feedback, and to really listen to other people. Now, I am confidently and happily giving my support. | Support | |
| Izno | Izno is a former Arb, seeking to return to the Committee. He did very good work back then, is a straight-shooter, and I'm enthusiastic about him coming back to the job. | Support | |
| Sdrqaz | Sdrqaz is a current Arb, running for a second term. He is well-qualified to do the job, and I see no issues. | Support | |
| SilverLocust | Like HouseBlaster, SilverLocust is an administrator and ArbCom clerk, running for a first term on the Committee. In the past year, the two of them have had to handle pretty much all of the very heavy workload of the clerks, and they both have done it with distinction. SilverLocust seems to me to be very smart and capable, and I'm happy to support. | Support |
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, and to all of the outgoing Committee members!