2023 ArbCom election
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2023 5:27 am
In yet another sign of Wikipedia's glide slope trajectory to oblivion, it used to actually be quite hard to find the tragic comedy in their annual Supreme Court election. It's becoming easier and easier.....
Democratic choice
As always, we start with the fact that yet again, there is huge reluctance in the community to even stand. With less than 24 hours until the deadline, there are fewer candidates than vacant seats. One fewer, to be precise. So this is not an exercise in democratic choice, but rather a dare, to see if you will vote for poor or unqualified candidates rather than leave a seat vacant.
And that is as always, not quite the theoretical you would hope.
The spread
There seems to be a mass delusion this year that while there aren't enough candidates standing, there is a good mix of youth and experience. Wtf?
Here is the reality....(RfA, previous ArbCom terms)
* 2023, none
* 2022, none
* 2022, none
* 2022, none
* 2020, one term incumbent seeking re-election
* 2019, none
* 2011, none
* 2007, two term former Arb
That's a rookie slate if ever there was one.
Aoidh
Absolute no hoper. Why would anyone in their right mind think 9 months experience as an Administrator would make you qualified to be of ANY PRACTICAL USE to the Wikipedia "Supreme Court"? If Wikipedia wasn't so fucked across the board, they would probably insist on two years Admin experience just to serve as an ArbCom clerk (there are so few cases that even that might not be sufficient exposure to conflict situations to be able to judge their suitability).
Z1720
Only slightly more experience as an Administrator than Aoidh, but 16 months is still woefully inexperienced for a seat at the top table. Unsurprisingly, their candidate statement was merely a statement of the obvious, namely that ArbCom's job is to settle interactible disputes and Arbitrators should be responsive and transparent where possible. Why on Earth would anyone be rushing to vote for this genius, if they genuinely had a choice?
Firefly and ToBeFree
The obligatory greasy pole careerist candidates. Reasonable experience but clearly only interested in Wikipedia for the power. I recognise both as people who happily block without giving specific reasons or even allowing open appeals, just the usual Defence of the Cult bullshit. They have already got a taste of the power that being given the keys to the private data locker allows, and they want more. ToBeFree even goes as far as kissing up to the current Committee members and their voters in their candidate statement. Worryingly, CheckUser Firefly hopes to ease ArbCom's workload by delegating appeals of CheckUser blocks to ..... the CheckUsers. One can only hope that if elected, these turn out to be socks.
Cabayi
The obligatory first term Committee member seeking re-election. As such, their candidate's statement is long on claims of success and effectiveness, short on examples. Comes across as the sort of asshole who thinks NOTHERE was an improvement in the effectiveness of Wikipedia governance. Not likely to worry most voters, but some of them should really ponder now much harassment on Wikipedia could be avoided if dick move blocks like that were not a thing. Although hilariously, he does seems to have a bug up his ass about Admins not giving any reason for a block in some pathetic attempt to DENY trolls, making work for ArbCom. Here's hoping he has fun serving with Firefly and ToBeFree.
Sdrqazabove
The obligatory I'M SUCH AN OUTSIDER, VOTE FOR ME I'LL SHAKE THINGS UP (BUT NOT IN A SCARY WAY) candidate.
Fuck off with that bullshit. Why would anyone vote for someone stupid enough to think one voice can effect real change in how ArbCom works? Unsurprisingly, their candidate statement doesn't specify one single thing they aim to actually change. It is a word salad of virtue signalling and statements of the blindingly obvious (so clearly he is not as much of an outsider as he thinks).
Being kind, one can say this is the exuberance of inexperience, having only been an Administrator for less than two years. I much prefer the edgy outsider to be relatively new. Wikipedia's rotting carcass has meant that the very long serving perpetual squeaky wheels who used to fulfil this role in these elections, are now finally long departed, and very forgotten.
HJ Mitchell
Jesus Christ. There's always one absolute dickhead. Harry is for sure a very experienced Administrator. Too experienced. He doesn't give a very convincing reason why he hasn't considered standing before, especially when he claims to have relevant real world experience and has quite willingly exposed himself to all the less savoury parts of Admin work that give good insights into the need for ArbCom.
I detect more than a few attempts to rewrite history and even lie in his statement. But why, is the question? One can never rule out stupidity or even arrogance I guess, and Harry is certainly stupid and arrogant. He used to be smart, a genuine free thinker and idealist, but somewhere along the way, he fell into line. He does his bit Defending the Cult just as surely as Firefly and ToBeFree.
Suffice to say, merely by not standing when his window was open, around five years ago I guess, after this much time, with his history of poor judgement, he has frankly amassed too many enemies inside and out, to be an effective Arbitrator. One cannot assume good faith here. Whether it is opportunism, hubris, boredom or something else, it just doesn't pass the small test. Hard pass.
Maxim
The obligatory multi-term former Arb who took a break and now wants to get back in the saddle to finish what he started. Since there is quite literally nobody else he would be denying a seat, it is literally pointless thinking that you could in any way deny them a seat. If he doesn't get a seat, crack open the champagne, because that would be constitutional crisis territory.
Democratic choice
As always, we start with the fact that yet again, there is huge reluctance in the community to even stand. With less than 24 hours until the deadline, there are fewer candidates than vacant seats. One fewer, to be precise. So this is not an exercise in democratic choice, but rather a dare, to see if you will vote for poor or unqualified candidates rather than leave a seat vacant.
And that is as always, not quite the theoretical you would hope.
The spread
There seems to be a mass delusion this year that while there aren't enough candidates standing, there is a good mix of youth and experience. Wtf?
Here is the reality....(RfA, previous ArbCom terms)
* 2023, none
* 2022, none
* 2022, none
* 2022, none
* 2020, one term incumbent seeking re-election
* 2019, none
* 2011, none
* 2007, two term former Arb
That's a rookie slate if ever there was one.
Aoidh
Absolute no hoper. Why would anyone in their right mind think 9 months experience as an Administrator would make you qualified to be of ANY PRACTICAL USE to the Wikipedia "Supreme Court"? If Wikipedia wasn't so fucked across the board, they would probably insist on two years Admin experience just to serve as an ArbCom clerk (there are so few cases that even that might not be sufficient exposure to conflict situations to be able to judge their suitability).
Z1720
Only slightly more experience as an Administrator than Aoidh, but 16 months is still woefully inexperienced for a seat at the top table. Unsurprisingly, their candidate statement was merely a statement of the obvious, namely that ArbCom's job is to settle interactible disputes and Arbitrators should be responsive and transparent where possible. Why on Earth would anyone be rushing to vote for this genius, if they genuinely had a choice?
Firefly and ToBeFree
The obligatory greasy pole careerist candidates. Reasonable experience but clearly only interested in Wikipedia for the power. I recognise both as people who happily block without giving specific reasons or even allowing open appeals, just the usual Defence of the Cult bullshit. They have already got a taste of the power that being given the keys to the private data locker allows, and they want more. ToBeFree even goes as far as kissing up to the current Committee members and their voters in their candidate statement. Worryingly, CheckUser Firefly hopes to ease ArbCom's workload by delegating appeals of CheckUser blocks to ..... the CheckUsers. One can only hope that if elected, these turn out to be socks.
Cabayi
The obligatory first term Committee member seeking re-election. As such, their candidate's statement is long on claims of success and effectiveness, short on examples. Comes across as the sort of asshole who thinks NOTHERE was an improvement in the effectiveness of Wikipedia governance. Not likely to worry most voters, but some of them should really ponder now much harassment on Wikipedia could be avoided if dick move blocks like that were not a thing. Although hilariously, he does seems to have a bug up his ass about Admins not giving any reason for a block in some pathetic attempt to DENY trolls, making work for ArbCom. Here's hoping he has fun serving with Firefly and ToBeFree.
Sdrqazabove
The obligatory I'M SUCH AN OUTSIDER, VOTE FOR ME I'LL SHAKE THINGS UP (BUT NOT IN A SCARY WAY) candidate.
Fuck off with that bullshit. Why would anyone vote for someone stupid enough to think one voice can effect real change in how ArbCom works? Unsurprisingly, their candidate statement doesn't specify one single thing they aim to actually change. It is a word salad of virtue signalling and statements of the blindingly obvious (so clearly he is not as much of an outsider as he thinks).
Being kind, one can say this is the exuberance of inexperience, having only been an Administrator for less than two years. I much prefer the edgy outsider to be relatively new. Wikipedia's rotting carcass has meant that the very long serving perpetual squeaky wheels who used to fulfil this role in these elections, are now finally long departed, and very forgotten.
HJ Mitchell
Jesus Christ. There's always one absolute dickhead. Harry is for sure a very experienced Administrator. Too experienced. He doesn't give a very convincing reason why he hasn't considered standing before, especially when he claims to have relevant real world experience and has quite willingly exposed himself to all the less savoury parts of Admin work that give good insights into the need for ArbCom.
I detect more than a few attempts to rewrite history and even lie in his statement. But why, is the question? One can never rule out stupidity or even arrogance I guess, and Harry is certainly stupid and arrogant. He used to be smart, a genuine free thinker and idealist, but somewhere along the way, he fell into line. He does his bit Defending the Cult just as surely as Firefly and ToBeFree.
Suffice to say, merely by not standing when his window was open, around five years ago I guess, after this much time, with his history of poor judgement, he has frankly amassed too many enemies inside and out, to be an effective Arbitrator. One cannot assume good faith here. Whether it is opportunism, hubris, boredom or something else, it just doesn't pass the small test. Hard pass.
Maxim
The obligatory multi-term former Arb who took a break and now wants to get back in the saddle to finish what he started. Since there is quite literally nobody else he would be denying a seat, it is literally pointless thinking that you could in any way deny them a seat. If he doesn't get a seat, crack open the champagne, because that would be constitutional crisis territory.