 | This voter guide for the 2014 Arbitration Committee elections is based on the four questions below which I have asked all the candidates. The results are followed by the answers I consider acceptable and the tally. You can see the candidates' answers to my questions for you to evaluate yourself whether you agree with my answers below or not. EllenCT (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
- Candidates passing support threshold
DGG, Dusti, Hahc21, Isarra, Stanistani- These next-best candidates did not pass my original threshold, but I include them to meet the number of vacancies: Courcelles, Dougweller, Salvio giuliano, Technical 13
- Candidates failing oppose threshold
Calidum, Geni, Guerillero, Kraxler, PhilKnight, Wbm1058
- Questions and answer key
- Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?
- Answer: Yes, because failing to follow the criteria is disruptive. Answers such as "no because they should have been dealt with before they got to arbitration" show a profound lack of understanding of dispute resolution reality.
- When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?
- Answer: No, because there is simply no way to understand whether a point of view is dominant, mainstream, or fringe without understanding the subject matter and which sources pertaining to it are reliable. I gave half credit to candidates who suggested that they can rely on a community consensus when it exists, but only if they also suggested that it's a good idea to try to understand the content.
- How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?
- Answer: anything that indicates this kind of selective editing behavior is unacceptable because it violates WP:NPOV. The open-ended nature of the question was intended to provide insight into the problem solving orientation of the candidate, or lack thereof. But to the extent that it resulted in answers saying "it depends on the details," that intent was unsuccessful.
- If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?
- Answer: Yes, because the first example that an editor provides on a topic with COI issues if they continue editing in it is clearly going to be testing what they can get away with if they have any substantial conflicts themselves.
- Tally
- Hahc21: 1-pass, 2-pass, 3-pass, 4-pass; total: 4/4 PASS
- Isarra: 1-pass, 2-pass, 3-pass, 4-pass; total: 4/4 PASS
- Stanistani: 1-pass, 2-pass, 3-pass, 4-pass; total: 4/4 PASS
- Dusti: 1-pass, 2-1/2, 3-pass, 4-pass; total: 3.5/4 PASS
- DGG: 1-pass, 2-pass, 3-pass, 4-fail; total: 3/4 PASS
- Courcelles: 1-1/2, 2-pass, 3-1/2, 4-1/2; total: 2.5/4 OK
- Dougweller: 1-fail, 2-1/2, 3-pass, 4-pass; total: 2.5/4 OK
- Salvio giuliano: 1-pass, 2-pass, 3-1/2, 4-fail; total: 2.5/4 OK
- Technical 13: 1-1/2, 2-fail, 3-pass, 4-pass; total: 2.5/4 OK
- DeltaQuad: 1-fail, 2-fail, 3-pass, 4-pass; total: 2/4
- Euryalus: 1-fail, 2-fail, 3-pass, 4-pass; total: 2/4
- Yunshui: 1-fail, 2-fail, 3-pass, 4-pass; total: 2/4
- Ks0stm: 1-fail, 2-fail, 3-pass, 4-1/2; total: 1.5/4
- Thryduulf: 1-pass, 2-fail, 3-fail, 4-1/2; total: 1.5/4
- Kraxler: 1-fail; no other answers, with suggestion that they aren't relevant. total: 1/4 FAIL
- Wbm1058: 1-fail, 2-1/2, 3-asked for more time but never revised answer, 4-we can't understand each other; total: 0.5/4 FAIL
- Calidum: 1-fail, 2-fail, 3-fail, 3-fail; total: 0/4 FAIL
- Guerillero: 1-fail, 2-no answer, 3-fail, 4-fail; total: 0/4 FAIL
- PhilKnight: didn't answer anyone's questions at all! FAIL
- Geni: answers all are apparently intentionally ambiguous which does not seem to me that they were taken seriously, and in some cases were obviously intentionally abrasive. FAIL
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |