Jump to content

User:MarioGom/Voting guides/U4C2024

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This is a brief guide on how I will be voting in the U4C 2024 election. A better overview of all candidates is available at User:Giraffer/U4CE2024.

Voting criteria[edit]

This is the main criteria I plan to apply for voting. It is not meant to be copied, but to give ideas on how you could define your own voting strategy, given that there is a fairly large candidate pool that most people are likely to be not familiar with.

  1. Did the candidate fill the initial statement? U4C will require significant commitment from its members and the community will be likely to demand as much transparency from it as possible. A blank candidate statement signals lack of commitment both to the role itself and to transparency. I will be opposing any candidate not meeting this criteria.
  2. Did the candidate engage in the question phase. While some candidates might have more availability than others, and I do not plan to rank them based on number of answers, a complete lack of community engagement during the election might signal a lack of commitment to accountability. I will be opposing any candidate not meeting this criteria by the end of the question phase.
  3. More than 10,000 global edits? More than 20,000? There is multiple ways to participate in Wikimedia projects, but I think an U4C member will not be able to handle conflicts properly if they lack any significant experience engaging with Wikimedia projects directly. 10,000 global edits is a very moderate threshold. If we had a far more experienced pool of candidates, I would likely use a way higher threshold.
  4. Signed up more than 4 years ago? or at least 2? The threshold here is rather arbitrary, but I think it takes quite some time to grasp the social dynamics of Wikimedia projects, as well as getting familiar with their policies. Even the most skilled candidate is likely to be unequipped with the role if they joined Wikimedia not long ago.
  5. Steward, arbitrator or functionary? Members of ArbCom already have the experience for the tasks that U4C will carry. Stewards should have it to some degree too. All of them have already demonstrated that they have a high degree support from their projects.
  6. Administrator (sysop)? Candidates who are administrators in any project might enjoy higher community trust and are more likely to have faced hard decisions on conduct.
  7. No recent or concerning sanctions? Everyone makes mistakes, but I expect every U4C member to have a great behavioral track record, at least in the recent past. In short: a track record of being part of the solution, not the problem.
  8. Any red flag? I will be checking if there is any major red flag that would warrant an oppose regardless of any other criteria.

Table[edit]

Here's a summary based on the criteria I outlined above. The first column indicates how likely I am to support, abstain or oppose each candidate.

Candidate Answers Reg. date Edit count Perms No sanctions No red flags
0xDeadbeef Yes 2020-10 14k sysop Yes Yes
1233 Yes 2012-02 14k No Yes Yes
787IYO No 2021-09 10k temp sysop Yes Cross-wiki attribution issues
Akwugo Yes 2020-11 15k No Disruptive editing block over improper references in 1lib1ref. Yes
Barkeep49 Yes 2005-06 40k arbitrator, oversighter, checkuser, sysop Yes Yes
BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU No 2014-11 14k sysop Yes Yes
Borschts Yes 2019-07 4k temp sysop Yes Yes
Chinmayee Mishra Yes 2015-12 12k No Yes Yes
Civvì Yes 2004-09 164k bureaucrat, sysop Yes Yes
C.Suthorn Yes 2016-08 181k No Yes Yes
Danotech No 2022-04 3k No Yes Yes
DeBolsillo No 2014-10 1k No Yes Yes
Ghilt Yes 2011-07 50k arbitrator, sysop Yes Yes
Ibrahim.ID Yes 2011-06 76k bureaucrat, sysop Yes Yes
Iwuala Lucy Yes 2020-02 9k No Yes Yes
J ansari No 2016-09 50k No Yes Yes
JogiAsad No 2011-07 71k sysop Yes Yes
Justine Msechu No 2021-01 4k sysop Yes Concerns over UCoC violations.
Khunou S No 2020-11 3k No Yes Yes
Leaderboard Yes 2013-11 13k sysop Yes Yes
Luke081515 Yes 2013-05 40k arbitrator, temp sysop Yes Yes
NANöR Yes 2019-07 29k sysop Yes Yes
Nskjnv No 2020-12 14k No Yes Yes
Ozzeon Yes 2019-01 3k No Yes Yes
Patriot Kor Yes 2013-03 45k No Yes Concerns over LLM usage for discussions.
ProtoplasmaKid Late 2006-04 92k bureaucrat, sysop Yes Yes
Ruby D-Brown No 2019-06 2k No Yes Yes
RXerself Yes 2010-02 31k sysop Yes Yes
Sleyece Yes 2016-10 2k No Disruptive editing blocks Bizarre answers
Superpes15 Yes 2010-05 131k steward, checkuser, sysop Yes Yes
Soni Yes 2014-02 10k No Yes Yes
SpringProof No 2019-10 1k No Yes Yes
Taylor 49 Yes 2016-12 131k sysop desysopped discussion
Tiputini Yes 2014-09 25k No Yes Yes
Ugwulebo Yes 2020-05 2k No copyvio block Yes
Volstand No 2019-07 15k temp sysop Yes Yes
Ybsen lucero Yes 2010-11 1k No Yes LLM-like responses in the questions phase