User:GregJackP/ACE2013

First, I shamelessly copied, stole, or appropriated the format for this guide from Boing! said Zebedee.

Second, I didn't ask any questions. There have been plenty of questions asked of the candidates. GregJackP Boomer! 05:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A question was raised on how I evaluated a couple of issues, so it is probably best to be transparent about my thought process.

1. Allegations of admin's misusing the bit or other misconduct needs to be looked at. Currently, AN/ANI is powerless, and RfC/U can't take any action. The only place you can go is ArbCom, which is made up (at present) of all admins. Guys, this is no different from complaining to the cops about misconduct by the cops. It doesn't work well, unless there is community oversight and transparency.
2. Outing editors, particularly due to a content dispute is unacceptable, reprehensible conduct that should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Editors or admins that do so should be handled quickly and firmly.
3. The goal of the project is to build an encyclopedia, not to please activist groups (which is broader than the Manning/transgender issue). We need to be neutral and follow the sources.
4. Transphobia and other types of bigotry have no place on Wikipedia and should not be tolerated. By the same token, labeling anyone that disagrees with a position a bigot is not acceptable either.
5. Someone under current sanctions should not be on ArbCom. I made an exception to this below for TDA. The exception was based on a number of factors. First, TDA is not an admin. Admins being under sanction is worse than an editor under sanction. The other reasons are listed below.
6. Candidates must be responsive to the questions asked. If they won't be open and answer questions during a campaign, what makes you think they'll explain their actions later?
7. Cojones. Better to have them than not, and no, that doesn't mean that they need to be male. Straight talk and honesty go with that.

GregJackP Boomer! 02:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

At the actual voting I changed one position, on GorillaWarfare, from support to neutral. This means that I voted to support the 7 candidates with a "support" recommendation and the 2 candidates with a neutral, lean support recommendation. Since strategic voting is expected in this election, all others received oppose votes. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I screwed up. I thought I had watchlisted Bwilkins' question page and apparently had not. He had a valid reason for not getting to it earlier and he came back and answered most of the questions. Anyway, I've changed my evaluation to neutral, leans support. It could have been support, but I did not see the position on allegations of admin abuse that I needed to see, nor enough information on the Sandifer/Sceptre questions. Should this change, I'll re-evaluate. GregJackP Boomer! 02:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Candidate	Comments	Opinion
28bytes	Some answers are very good, and some are problematic. First, 34% of the questions were not answered, which is an unacceptable amount. I agree that child protection investigations need to be handled by WMF, it is an area where you cannot afford to make an error that could harm a child. Some of the other answers disappoint, such as the waffling on the Phil Sandifer and the tap-dancing on the questions by Sceptre. Finally, an allegation of admin abuse must be looked at by someone, and right now that is ArbCom. You take the case, every time.	Neutral
AGK	All questions answered. Unfortunately, the best predictor of future actions are past actions, and I'm not comfortable with his decisions or reasoning in a number of the cases. He does accept cases on admin abuse, which is what is necessary given that there are no other realistic forums to address those issues.	Neutral, lean support
Arthur Rubin	Currently under a topic ban. An arbitrator need not have a spotless background, but should not be under active sanctions. The rest doesn't matter if current sanctions are in place.	Oppose
Beeblebrox	Answered 91% of the questions, and the justification for the questions not answered was appropriate. I also like their direct approach to answering questions. I think that he would be a good committee member.	Support
Bwilkins	Bwilkins declined to answer 2/3rds of the questions, but wants to be an arbitrator. I'm sorry, but an arb has to be open and responsive to requests for feedback by the community. I generally like him, but openness is a requirement. Should he answer the questions, this position could change. Bwilkins has answered about 75% of the questions, and the delay was for valid reasons. He has made very good points on transparency and on the deliberative process. However, I don't like the fact that he ignored the admin abuse question, which, together with the answer to the Sandifer matter gives us nothing to evaluate him on in this area.	File:Symbol Symbol partially neutral vote.svg Neutral, lean support.
David Gerard	Under active sanctions. Not acceptable, as noted above.	Oppose
Floquenbeam	Declined to answer 1/4 of questions. Good answer on child protection issues. I don't like the answer on the infobox move (if the infobox was there to begin with, and then removed by the no infobox types, reverting to the infobox is the R. The subsequent move back to no-infobox is the edit that is disruptive. An arb must be able to see that. On the other hand, the statement on content creators not getting a pass is perfect. The deciding factor to me was that he had the cojones to block a sitting arb. Regardless of whether he was correct or not, he thought he was right and acted. Wikipedia needs that, and for that reason, I support his candidacy.	Support
Gamaliel	Did not answer about 25% of the questions. Clearly not easily fit into one box or the other. Some answers, such as on the Sandifer block are outstanding. On the other hand, he completely ignored the admin abuse questions or vested contributors question. Flip a coin.	Neutral
Georgewilliamherbert	His position on outing is not strong enough. The fact that he would take no action against an admin who was intentionally posting personal information about another editor in order to harm that editor is enough to vote against him here.	Opposed
GorillaWarfare	She would be a good addition to the Committee. Very good answers all around. Changed to neutral based on factors that recently came to my attention, which would have no bearing on her ability, but which preclude my supporting her.	Support Neutral
Guerillero	A good guy who knows the process, but who has two major thesises (thesi?) due during the next year. I can see supporting him in the furture.	Neutral, lean oppose
Isarra	I don't like all that many types of pie. Sorry, but the answers are a little too flippant.	Neutral, lean oppose
Kraxler	Good answers, not an admin which would be an advantage. He has the age and maturity. I would have preferred that he had answered Sven's questions, but I liked the response he gave to Sceptre.	Support
Ks0stm	Did not answer Sceptre's question. Answer on Sandifer was not satisfactory. Either what he did was deserving of removing the bit and banning, or not. Answering in a process-based manner just dodged the questions. Too restrictive on what it takes to accept an admin abuse case.	Oppose
Kww	Good answers. He's not the most diplomatic candidate, and has drawn some opposes in other guides, but some of what they oppose is exactly what will make him well suited for ArbCom. I like what he has to say about admins who unblock, not based on policy, but because they don't like their "friend" or whatever being blocked. I also really liked what he did with visual editor.	Strong support
LFaraone	Only answered 40% of the questions, unacceptable for a candidate. He has the completely wrong answer on admin abuse, in not taking a case unless it is "prolonged or egregious". The problem with that is how many have been abused in that time period? The answer that the Sandifer action was outside of the remit is also wrong.	Oppose
NativeForeigner	Terrible opening statement. Allowing content creators to do whatever they want? I don't think so. There is also a problem with the answers to questions. The answer on admin abuse is especially weak. In this context ArbCom should be looked at as a citizen's review board, not as part of a wall of silence.	Oppose
RegentsPark	While he answered all but a few questions, the answers were not what we as a community should want in ArbCom. His response on Sandifer and to Sceptre were particularly weak. Wikipedia cannot and should not tolerate any form of outing or harassment of other editors, especially based on a content dispute. Add to this the repeated unblock of a user with good content contributions indicates that we should pass on this candidate.	Oppose
Richwales	He has a good grasp on the process and what's needed. I like his approach on civility, his content work, and his answers on Sceptre and to a lessor extent on Sandifer. I disagree with his answer on admin abuse, but can live with it.	Support
Roger Davies	Generally support. One of the better arbs.	Support
Seraphimblade	There's a lot about Seraphimblade to like, but there are a few questions where his answer was not optimum. This would include the admin abuse question, I would have preferred a stronger stance towards evaluating admin conduct (or misconduct). I think his answer on Sandifer was not adequate, nor was his answer to Sceptre. He did not take a stand in either one of those answers.	Neutral, lean support
The Devil's Advocate	Although under a topic ban, TDA had enough positives to outweigh what would normally be a deal killer for me. The exception to the rule, one might say. First, he's not an admin, and the community needs a non-admin on ArbCom. Preferably more than one. Second, he shoots straight, which bothers a number of people. Third, he's opposed by some people whose view is diametrically opposed from mine, which is a good sign for what his views are.	Support