Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam

Question ratio
At present, there are 48 questions being asked of this candidate.
 * 15, or 30%, are general questions
 * 25, or 52%, are "guide writer" questions
 * Only 8 (or 28%) are personalized questions by other editors.

I personally feel the writers are unfairly hogging the question space and the pretense of writing those widely read guides limits the attention given to others. Thanks for taking a stand here. MLauba (Talk) 10:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that four of my "guide writer" questions had been general questions in the past. Thus the numbers might be misconstrued by others. Collect (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this changes anything. Candidates will clearly see that spending most of their time answering questions from guide writers carefully will produce a wider impact, at the detriment of individualized and personalized questions. I happen to think the rule of ACE2011 (or was it 2010) that prohibited mass posting questions not part of the general set did a good job to preserve a balance that has since been lost. Obviously, everyone's mileage will vary about this, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad a candidate decided to break away from this despite getting an oppose from all you questionnaire-based guide writers. MLauba (Talk) 18:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem from my point of view is that the elided questions had been general questions before. And I had specifically mentioned them in asking they be asked this year on the proper discussion page about general questions.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable non-answer
I find it impossible to support any candidate concealing previous Wikipedia accounts, be they on ostensible "privacy" grounds (sez who?) or not... A person does have a right to leave a previous identity behind and to create a new one on Wikipedia. Fair enough. But one one does not have a right to expect that they will be given a free pass on the editing behavior of that previous account when seeking elected office, either at the level of Administrator or especially at the level of ArbCom member. There is an enormous risk of bad actors slipping through the cracks without full and transparent disclosure of all accounts as a matter of fundamental principle.

I will be voting OPPOSE on this candidate and I urge others to do likewise. Carrite (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ,, : A question for the EC: I apparently have stirred up a hive of junior detectives on Wikipediocracy with my note about a previous account (apparently they would have preferred that I lie). Amidst all the silliness there, someone did make an interesting point: I haven't identified the name of my previous account (from 5 years ago) to ArbCom. I provided it to checkuser User:Alison and my RFA nominators, and Alison provided it to bureaucrat User:WJBscribe  with my permission during my RFA. The ArbCom mailing list has been leaked in the past, and any email I send there is available to current and future Arbs, so I can't know who will have access to it in the future.  I am not going to provide the name to the whole list.  I would be willing, if necessary, to provide it to one of you, and/or to one or two arbs that I trust a lot. Is this necessary for my elegibility? Is it sufficient? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC) (edited for precision (changes italicized) Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC))
 * I will email the others.--v/r - TP 14:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, having thought more about this today, I remain very comfortable that by notifying people about the account in my candidacy statement, I've complied with the intent of the requirement (which is most important), and believe I've probably complied with the letter of it too, although I can see a legitimate disagreement there. I notified people the account exists. Knowing about it, if they choose not to vote for me because there is some possibility that I am a Manchurian Candidate of some kind (albeit one too stupid to not just lie about that previous account in my RFA), then they won't vote for me. If the few people I told about it at my RFA, who vouched for my lack of any ulterior motive, aren't convincing, then vote against me.  I haven't tried to sneak anything by anyone.  I've let them know the account exists, I've "divulged" it, IMHO, and thus complied with the rule. What happens next should be up to a vote. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. The crowd are back to that again eh Floq? FWIW (probably little) I'm fully aware of the previous account, and can confirm that edits made from it were utterly uncontroversial. As Floq points out, they could have just lied. But hey, let's penalise the candidate for being honest instead. Clearly some would prefer liars on Arbcom. How short sighted. Pedro : Chat  23:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned on WPO, I don't care if the previous account was a real name use of "Jesus H. Christ" from a Comcast account in Nazareth... All accounts should be named so that their editing history may be scrutinized as a matter of fundamental principle. If a person can't do that, for whatever reason, they shouldn't be running. Carrite (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Pedro's comment "As Floq points out, they could have just lied." is very screwed up. Think about it. -TCO 64.134.103.150 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it, and I can't see why it's screwed up at all, to be honest. Pedro : Chat  11:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Five years ago? Can't you just look at the past 5 years, which are on record? That's far more than you're able to view in similar circumstances, whether you're voting for a politician or hiring an employee. II  | (t - c) 07:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Commission ruling
The election commission has carefully considered the issue of Floquenbeam's disclosure of previous accounts and determined that the requirement set in the 2013 Request for Comment on this election has not been met. We have also considered the request to disclose the alternate account to the Electoral Commission and determined that this also does not satisfy the requirement.

We therefore conclude that Floquenbeam is required to disclose their previous accounts to, at least, a single standing current Arbitrator from Tranche Alpha, of Floquenbeam's choice based on personal trust, for the chosen Arbitrator to conduct a full review and confirm that the previous account holds no history that would be of current concern or criticism by eligible voters.

For the election commission, Happy‑melon 16:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I'll see if I can find one with the time to look into this. I assume when they're done they should mention the result of their review here? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes please. Happy‑melon 17:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As a point of order, I believe you mean a sitting arbitrator, not a standing one; a standing arbitrator would be one who is currently standing for election. All joking about positions aside, I think the correct action would more reasonably be "reporting to a currently sitting arbitrator" without mention of tranches, which are practically impossible to figure out nowadays, especially since many of us were elected initially in one tranche and are now in a different one. Either that, or spell out the acceptable arbitrators by name.  Risker (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We mean a person who is currently a member of the Arbitration Committee and whose term ends at the end of 2014, not at the end of 2013; I guess "sitting" is probably a more common nomenclature than "standing", yes. The timeline gives a fairly good and accurate description of who that encompasses, and the fact that that is equivalent to specifying tranche alpha. Happy‑melon 18:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I was confused about "tranche alpha" for a minute too, but there's a handy chart at WP:ACE2013. I've asked Newyorkbrad. If he can't do it, I'm grudgingly going to skip over Worm That Turned; although I trust him implicitly, he and I are on pretty good terms, and someone might scream "coverup" or something and I'd have to go through all this again. I'll ping Carcharoth next, I'm familiar with his long history here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've responded to Floquenbeam's request on my talkpage. I will take on this assignment and report my findings here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, having been informed of the identity of Floquenbeam's prior account at the time of their RfA, I concur completely with Newyorkbrad's findings below. WJBscribe (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of prior account
I am a current arbitrator in Tranche Alpha (that is, my term does not expire this year). In conformity with the Electoral Commission ruling above, Floquenbeam has confidentially shared with me the name of his prior account, and I have reviewed its editing history. I state as follows:
 * As requested by the Commission and the candidate, I have conducted a full review and I confirm that the previous account holds no history that would be of current concern or criticism by eligible voters.
 * In particular, the account had no block log and no ArbCom sanctions.
 * My overall evaluation of the prior account is consistent with Alison's evaluation here.
 * The prior account was abandoned for legitimate privacy reasons, and has not been used in several years.
 * In my opinion, the community has sufficient information based on Floquenbeam's editing under his current account that each voter is able to make a fully informed decision on his candidacy&mdash;whether support, oppose, or neutral&mdash;based on the Floquenbeam account's editing history and without regard to the prior account.

I hope this is helpful to the voters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It was actually. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)