User:Badger Drink/ACE2011

Criteria

Clue

I don't have the most exhaustive list of criteria. It all boils down to "does this particular candidate strike me as a particularly intelligent and thoughtful voice". I don't have complicated rubrics, I don't have long tangents of "this issue and that issue and that other issue are important, and the correct views are x, y, and z", because a candidate who I consider clueful will, by definition, tend to have largely the same biases as I myself do. The questions which I felt gave the most opportunity to distinguish between the "clued" and the "clueless" were Q3 and Q8 from the standard list, Rschen's Q3, Q4, and Q10, and NuclearWarfare's Q1 and Q3.

I understand that this may not be the most "insightful" of criteria, and is far from the most eloquent, but I believe it to be the most honest and the most flexible criteria I myself could possibly manage.

Nota bene

I am currently the subject of an RfC (links available wherever fine links are sold). Since making my initial statement on the RfC, I have not returned to read the subsequent chatterings and developments, nor do I plan to. At the time of my voting and the initial composition of this guide, I was happily ignorant of whatever positions the various candidates may or may not have taken (though, as is elaborated upon below, I had strong reason to infer the participation of and position taken by one particular candidate) - though while working on this guide, I have since "cheated" and read a few voter guides (particularly Kiefer's). I am somewhat heartened, though honestly less-than-surprised, to find that candidates' behavior there was pretty much in keeping with the opinions I had already formed.

My votes

Currently Running

(all rights and edits and various minutiae gleefully and willfully stolen from User:NuclearWarfare's guide).

User	Statement & Questions	Rights	Edits	Since	Preliminary notes	Opinion
AGK  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS	30,521	2006-02-27	A solid candidate. Was previously opposed by several for having too many positions and functions, back in the day when we could afford to be a lot more ticky-tacky with our opposes. Only concern I see raised in these trying times is a lack of content creation, which, as always, is such a ridiculous notion that I find it to be almost surreal. Just because somebody is good at building houses does not necessarily mean they're suited to be on the county council - and the inverse is also false: just because they're a disaster with a hammer does not automatically mean they're unfit for such a role. Also false is the converse , as is the contrapositive , but that's neither here nor there. Bottom line is that "lack of content creation" has always comes across as a somewhat sneaky, insidious way to treat various positions as a "reward" for content-creation, rather than give them to those best suited for the demands of the position itself.	Strong support
Coren  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,Arb	16,556	2003-05-27	He may not have lost the plot, but I think his grasp on the plot interferes with his ability to work in the real world. He strikes me as a candidate who will vote based on abstract notions, completely blinding himself to the actual context of the case in front of him. His correspondence on the leaked Arbcom mailing list showed a rather disturbing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT side. Off-wiki is off-wiki, granted, but in this case it serves to illustrate concerns that were latent, but unable to be precisely pin-pointed. His behavior in the FT2 saga cast him as far too willing to play the blue wall game, despite reams of evidence supporting the "other side".	Oppose
Courcelles  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS	206,036	2006-09-17	Definitely the trendy support in 2011. I worry he may be a bit too lenient on patience-exhausting incompetence and a bit too mercenary on those whose patience was exhausted, but still, he's a decent enough candidate in this year's troubled elections. Answer to Q8, despite some issues towards the end, demonstrated high capacity for clue.	Strong support
DeltaQuad  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	ex-A,OTRS	15,984	2007-11-07	Put bluntly and succinctly: I feel he's a mediocre and naive candidate with very mediocre and naive answers whose naive mediocrity is more palatable than some of the outright badness of other candidates, so this is a Tactical Support.	Support
Eluchil404  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	10,768	2006-03-02	Answers to Rschen's Q4 and Q3 paint this candidate as one who's more concerned with Kind Words than abject incompetence. Complete non-starter.	Oppose
Geni  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS	27,643	2004-03-30	Wretched lack of communication skills. Opposing for the reasons I already stated in his 3rd RfA.	Oppose
Hersfold  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,ex-Arb	33,277	2006-12-21	Bureaucratic, but good enough to support in a weak pool.	Support
Hot_Stop  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	None	831	2011-04-11	I don't believe a low edit-count is necessarily "proof" of inexperience, but in this case, the correlation is inescapable. Very naive, boilerplate answers to questions.	Oppose
Jclemens  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb,	32,210	2006-08-24	Absolutely not. This is absolutely VILE (and the fact that it comes in knightly defense of the e'er-so-noble WP:CIVIL is the icing on the cake). NuclearWarfare raises further issues, but for me, it starts and ends with the mercenary attitude displayed in the above diff. If the current wave of Young Student Civilcrats had an evolved, adult understanding of civility, this is what they'd be up in arms about, not the latest f-bomb on a Talk page. It takes a truly fascinating mixture of disgusting, wretched policy-wonkery and a woefully ignorant, naive Arbitrary Middle School Hall-Monitor Psyche to come up with both (paraphrased) "who cares if you're in the ICU, that's still no excuse for not visiting the Arbcom tree fort and dancing with us" and (also paraphrased) "who cares if you have serious, life-threatening health concerns and were being baited by a horde of chattering RANDYS, you still totally used testy language on a Talk page" - welcome to the dark, frightening world of Jclemens. As he himself says as part of the rambling series of platitudes that comprises his response to Q8, "we need to review our processes, messages, and attitudes to make sure we're not being unnecessarily harsh and unforgiving". Yes, Jclemens, "we" certainly do.	Strong Oppose
Kirill_Lokshin  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,Arb	70,451	2005-06-08	Not a fan of the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development, and the "true" reasoning for it (revealed in the ArbCom-L leaks - though I'm sure a, shall we say, "politically-inclined" mind might figure out the reasoning even without reading the leaks) leaves me uncomfortable (even if it could be argued, rather cheekily, that it seems to have had the desired effect on one of the parties concerned). That said, and despite other reservations here and there (not at all a fan of the Climate Change participation), other Arbs seem to vouch for him, and in a ragged field like this year's there really aren't eight better candidates. I can hold my nose here and support.	Support
Kww  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	55,932	2007-01-09	This popular video clip, which I'm sure plenty have seen, is a good depiction of my reaction after reading his statement. My reaction to his answers to Rschen's Q3 and Q4 and NuclearWarfare's Q3 was even stronger. Best of the 2011 candidates by a mile.	Strong support
Panyd  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS	9,044	2007-10-13	I think I like the answers to Rschen Q3 and Q4, but NuclearWarfare Q3 and general Q8a point to a disheartening capacity for intellectual relativism, which is an attitude that, simply and bluntly put, has absolutely no fucking place on an encyclopedia (trigger warning: cussword). Answer to Rschen Q10 is naive at best - 100 new users merrily adding In Popular Culture sections is in no way preferable to 10 old users tirelessly trudging across the tundra and fixing the stream of deplorably-written, poorly-organized, sometimes-imbalanced, sometimes-plagiarized content from those "glory days" of 2006-07 (unless the end-goal is to go back to the days of green E's in everyone's signatures). Ultimately I doubt that the candidate can adequately understand how someone could possibly be baited without the baiter saying "I'm baiting you".	Oppose
NWA.Rep  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	None	4,289	2006-02-12	This ArbCom candidate, noted for his large, natural-- agh, forget it, why mince words: Absolutely not.	Strong Oppose
SilkTork  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A	51,864	2006-01-12	Why mince words: Absolutely yes. A great, sane, level-headed candidate with excellent answers to the questions. About the only valid concern I've seen raised is a potential for inactivity, but even if that's the case, a slow candidate with activity concerns and a ridiculous amount of clue is far, far better than a quick candidate who's always active and always clueless.	Strong support
Risker  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb	18,805	2005-12-27	No. Climate Change proposed decision was an unmitigated disaster. Views at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed decision#The Wikimedia Foundation as an employer are completely misguided and reveal a tendency towards simple-minded literalism ("well, if the person he contacted to try and get her fired wasn't actually her employer, then it wasn't exactly off-wiki harassment, now was it?").	Oppose
Roger_Davies  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,CU,OS,Arb	29,341	2005-09-17	" . . . both good and bad . . . could have been worse . . . some ideas for reform . . . I don't feel entirely comfortable supporting . . . but there is not a great field this year . . . so I shall support" .	Support
Worm_That_Turned  • talk • contribs  • logs • block log  • editcount • rights	Statement Questions Discussion	A,OTRS	8,905	2008-07-13	Absolutely not. It's not a personal thing - I am in possession of just enough starry-eyed idealism to assume he would happily recuse himself in all matters dealing with me. But this needling casts him as a Middle School Hall Monitor of the worst variety - you really don't know if he's consciously trolling, patting himself on the back for parroting the dialect of civility while doing his best to inflame a situation; or just completely and unconsciously clueless. My best faith assumption here is that WTT has all the latent policy-wonkery and mercenary "rules are more important than people" attitudes of Jclemens, only with a less-comprehensive knowledge of policy and capacity for drudgery.	Strong Oppose

Withdrawn

N/A

Notes

• Positions
  • Arb=Current Arbitrator
  • ex-Arb=Former Arbitrator
  • OTRS=Have access to OTRS for purposes other than checkuser or oversight
• Admin-level-or-higher rights
  • A=Administrator
  • B=Bureaucrat
  • CU=Checkuser (requires identification to WMF)
  • OS=Oversighter (requires identification to WMF)
  • S=Steward (requires identification to WMF, no other non en:wp rights will be shown)
• "None" refers to no admin-level-or-high rights