User:Gamaliel/ACE2014

I spent a bit of time today going over the candidates' statements and answers and the other voting guides. I tried to articulate why I decided the way I did, but in some borderline cases, I ended up going with my gut, so this guide may be of limited use to anyone else.

A couple of things which guided my decisions. I did not rule out any non-admin candidates strictly on the basis of not being admins. That said, becoming an admin means you are vetted by the community in an RfA and have a track record with processes and conflicts related to ArbCom that can be examined. Without those things, in my view a candidate has to make up for it in other areas, like content creation or conflict experience.

Also, my question about the gender gap produced some answers from the candidates ranging from troubling to outright appalling. This question was not intended to serve as a litmus test but as easy way for them to state their views on an important issue that I thought was non-controversial. Apparently, I was wrong, as a number of candidates outright dismissed the issue, complained about straw men like forcing editors to write certain types of articles, or even said that non-white male editors would get along fine here if they just acted like the majority. These are not the attitudes that we need on the Committee.


 * User:Calidum: Overall, good but overly succinct answers.  They are oddly brief for someone who has so much background discussing ArbCom with his series of voter guides.  Candidate says himself "I'm not an admin.  I'm not a prolific content creator."  The 2011 and 2012 blocks for personal attacks also are a negative.   Oppose.  Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:Courcelles: Good answers, experienced.  Support. Symbol support vote.svg
 * User:DeltaQuad: Weak oppose. Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:DGG: Decent answers, experienced.  Support. Symbol support vote.svg
 * User:Dougweller: Good answers, experienced.  Support.   Symbol support vote.svg
 * User:Dusti: Lack of content contributions, repeatedly rejected at RfA, a troubling block log, including a recent edit warring block. Oppose.  Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:Euryalus: Good answers, support. Symbol support vote.svg
 * User:Geni:  An experienced editor, but many have expressed concerns that he does not have the temperament for ArbCom and seems to be a disruptive presence on mailing lists and other forums.  Oppose.  Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:Guerillero: Experienced, good answers, though I disagree with some of them. Support.  Symbol support vote.svg
 * User: Hahc21: Experienced, but others have brought up concerns about his suitability for the role, and I have some concerns about his answers.  Oppose.   Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:Isarra: Should be blocked under WP:NOTHERE. Oppose.  Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:Kraxler: An excellent content creator, but I'm not sure there's enough experience in other areas relevant to ArbCom.  Plus poor or incomplete answers.  Oppose.  Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:Ks0stm: Experienced, good answers. Support. Symbol support vote.svg
 * User:PhilKnight: An excellent, experienced editor, administrator, and former arbitrator, I was glad to see him run for the position, but I don't think it's appropriate that he has answered none of the questions while other candidates have answered some or all of them. Since there are other good candidates running, I will oppose strictly on that basis.  Weak oppose.   Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:Salvio giuliano: By all accounts, this candidate has done an excellent job serving on the committee. I would like to read his answer on the civility question, but frankly that won't keep me from voting for him.  Support. Symbol support vote.svg
 * User:Stanistani: This candidate seems to have a good handle on the issues facing ArbCom, but has very little experience with content creation - an incredibly low 1575 edits - and in the other on-WIki areas required for ArbCom.  Even without addressing the Wikipediocracy matter, I don't think this candidate is ready for the Committee.  Oppose. Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * That said, I commend Stanistani for being upfront about his participation in Wikipediocracy (that can't be said about some previous candidates) and his work ensuring that Wikipediocracy is much less of a cesspool than Wikipedia Review was. I think his candidacy and his answers have taught a lot of us about the inner workings of Wikipediocracy and even changed our minds a little bit about the site.  However, he does not confront the issue of doxxing head-on, however, vacillating between disclaiming responsibility for the behavior of Wikipediocracy users and justifying it all on the basis of Qworty's behavior.
 * User:Technical 13: A troubling block log for disruptive editing, a dustup with Hasteur on the ArbCom questions page, and an absolutely appalling answer to the gender gap question. Oppose. Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:Thryduulf: Good answers, experienced. Support. Symbol support vote.svg
 * User:Wbm1058: Lack of experience, plus the weird shenanigans of withdrawing and the reentering the race.  Weak oppose. Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * User:Yunshui: Weak oppose.   Symbol oppose vote.svg