User:Tryptofish/ACE2019

__NOINDEX__

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 (in fact, most of them are). 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 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. There are 11 seats to be filled in this election, an unusually high number due to an unusual amount of attrition, in a mix of one-year and two-year terms. I usually don't try to support exactly 11 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 nine candidates for the 11 open seats. There are 22 candidates running. I've thought about this, and I've decided to support fewer than 11, because it would be better to have a few empty seats than to have flawed members getting elected. There are relatively few candidates whom I regard as completely unqualified, so quite a few of my opposes are very mild and just reflect the fact that other candidates seem to me to be a bit better. 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 am taking some specific factors into account as well. In light of the large turnover, I'm giving some preference to candidates who have not been on the Committee before, because we need to build a new generation of members, instead of turning to the same people year after year. And of particularly large importance to me, I'm taking into account what has happened in the past year. A highlight of the year was the Committee's letter to the Wikimedia Foundation, asserting the community's right to self-governance. Unfortunately, there were multiple bad decisions in the months just after that (the Fram case, and the off-wiki Ritchie case, in particular). As a result, I'm putting a premium on the ability to consider nuance, rather than to judge quickly or harshly.

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/ACE2019, 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.

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!