User:Gerda Arendt/Vote ACE 2013
If you come here to find out how I voted, you may be disappointed. If you want a quick, simple and trustworthy guide for whom to support and oppose, go by Bishzilla.
I was involved in one case, called Infoboxes. I was disappointed and have three concerns that I presented to candidates:
- Do you look at the facts? Really? In context? Can you leave your bias behind?
- Do you communicate with colleagues if you find their reasoning questionable, - which includes that you followed it, looking at facts?
- Would you cast a vote to ban an editor with the margin of one - your - voice? (Occasionally I asked also: would you provide reasoning in that case?
If you are interested, study the responses. Good news: the next group of arbs will look at facts better than the current.
- Please describe what happens in .
- Imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do?
- Imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, and an equal number of arbs voted against it, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. Assuming you lean towards it (or will you never?): will you?