User:MarioGom/Voting guides/U4C2024

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

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. Oppose candidates with a blank candidate page. 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.
2. Oppose candidates who did not 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.
3. Oppose candidates with less than 10,000 global edits. 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. Oppose candidates who signed up after 2020. 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. Oppose candidates with a recent history of 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.
6. Support every steward, bureaucrat and arbitrator. Members of ArbCom already have the experience for the tasks that U4C will carry. Stewards and bureaucrat should have it to some degree too. All of them have already demonstrated that they have a high degree support from their projects.
7. Decide between Oppose, Abstain and Support for remaining candidates. Not everything can be mechanical criteria. The remaining candidates are on a grey area, and will require a more nuanced decision.

Applying voting criteria

1. Oppose candidates with a blank candidate page. Oppose Sir Amugi, Danotech.
2. Oppose candidates who did not engage in the question phase. Oppose 787IYO, Akwugo, BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU, DeBolsillo, J ansari, JogiAsad, Justine Msechu, Khunou S, NANöR, Nskjnv, Ozzeon, ProtoplasmaKid, Ruby D-Brown, SpringProof, Tiputini, Volstand, Ybsen lucero.
3. Oppose candidates with less than 10,000 global edits. Oppose Iwuala Lucy, Borschts, Sleyece, Ugwulebo.
4. Oppose candidates who signed up after 2020. Nothing.
5. Oppose candidates with a recent history of sanctions. Oppose Taylor 49 (desysop).
6. Support every steward, bureaucrat and arbitrator. Support Barkeep49, Ghilt, Superpes15, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Civvì. Potentially ProtoplasmaKid if he decides to engage in the election.
7. Decide between Oppose, Abstain and Support for remaining candidates.
   1. 0xDeadbeef: Support, as an admin of English Wikipedia, with no red flags, experience in Chinese Wikipedia, a chance to cover ESEAP seat.
   2. 1233: TBD
   3. C.Suthorn: TBD
   4. Chinmayee Mishra: TBD
   5. Leaderboard: TBD
   6. Patriot Kor: Oppose. Fairly experienced, but answers to questions do not give me enough reassurance that they are fit for the U4C role.
   7. RXerself: TBD
   8. Soni: Abstain. Not as experienced in project participation, and no experience with advanced permissions. However, from their answers to the questions, they look like a decent candidate. (Note: I am still thinking about whether I should be opposing rather than abstaining for any candidate that I don't rank as top 2 in a competitive homewiki seat).

Seat assignment

This is just a thought experiment: how would the U4C seat assignment look like if it was decided exclusively by my own candidate ranking, after applying region and home wiki constraints:

1. CEE: Vacant
2. ESEAP: 0xDeadbeef
3. LAC: Vacant
4. MENA: Ibrahim.ID
5. NA: Vacant
6. NWE: Superpes15
7. SA: Vacant
8. SSA: Vacant
9. Community-at-large:
   1. Barkeep49
   2. Civvì
   3. Ghilt
   4. Luke081515
   5. Vacant
   6. Vacant
   7. Vacant
   8. Vacant