User:Peter Damian/ACE2015

My guide[edit]

Candidate	Thoughts	Verdict
~~AKS.9955 (talk · contribs) (page)~~	Little experience. Previous account Arunsingh16 was subject to a CCI Withdrawn.
Callanecc (talk · contribs) (page)	Famously blocked someone for asking "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" (04:50, 1 April 2015). "This looks like a blatant very serious personal attack (re Zero). I'm guessing I'm missing something?" 04:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC). "Thanks Future Prefect (sic), I've unblocked, never heard it used like that before." "Even for a wikipedia senior editor, that's a really special level of uneducated and stupid" (Dan Murphy).
Casliber (talk · contribs) (page)	He drones on about plants a lot but undoubtedly sincere, he contributes to Wikipediocracy, so what more could you ask
Drmies (talk · contribs) (page)	People who I like seem to like him.
Gamaliel (talk · contribs) (page)	Strong on the content stuff. [edit] However further research suggests he as used his admin position to support his agenda in Wikipedia, and I hear bad noises about 'Gamergate' which I haven't followed too closely.
GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) (page)	Hangs out on IRC. Too much of an insider for my liking.
Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) (page)	Desysopped for WP:INVOLVED and blocking an editor he was in a dispute with.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) (page)	Says "I find the phrase "educating reporters" Orwellian." "when a case is accepted, the Committee provide a clear statement of which matters it intends to address in that case." " I was one of the editors who raised warning signals about Qworty (but was unfortunately ignored), whose editing led to one of Wikipedia's worst public embarassments." See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. So a BLP zealot, but in a good way, so support.
Keilana (talk · contribs) (page)	Was involved in this abomination, an interview with Andrew Lih. My partial transcription is here. She and Lih supported the awful Visual Editor (""If you’re just correcting a typo it’s super-easy"). Did not like 'power users'. Complained that Wikipedia society [with a sneer that imples ‘if you can call it that’] is a very insular population. You earn political capital by participating in high profile discussions. "The reason the power users are able to overturn this is because they have this capital. And it’s very indicative of the wider problem of the rift between the power user community, the 10%, and the Foundation'. She refers to a badly thought-through rejection of what is good for the mission of the project. “This culture of ‘you have betrayed the power users .. I find to be very problematic. We are all here to do the same thing, and the Foundation has ideas about that, and the users have an idea about how that should be done”. Complains about 'IP discrimination'. Right. The Foundation must absolutely increase the turnover of editors because participation is all that matters. Actually, reading the transcription, there are some very good points - the community are a bunch of internet geeks (15:50), the population is insular, RfCs really are a weird bunch of testimonials, there is a divide between the ordinary users and the 'power users'. OTOH, given that it's mostly the power users who vote in Arbcom, will they vote for her? Hmm. OK. Changed my mind again after looking at this complaint about the video. Kww points out that it casts him as 'some kind of bad guy that unilaterally turned off a crowning achievement of the WMF'. This wasn't true as he spent some time getting widespread support. Lih's claim that kww's code was broken was based on a falsehood put about by James Forrester. Kww: 'If you are going to put yourself in the position of "reporting news" about Wikipedia, you should at least take the time to get your facts straight. The errors that would have caused a server overload were caught during review and corrected'. Keilana didn't propagate these falsehoods directly, but she appears on the video in a way that makes it difficult to distance herself. And she certainly made all those comments about 'power users' that rightly angered Kww. So, changing back to 'oppose'.
Kelapstick (talk · contribs) (page)	Has done some decent content work. His OTRS work also appears to be good. On balance, support.
Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) (page)	Lover of drama (nothing wrong with that), but seems more interested in politics than improving the encyclopedia. He is also a 'Wikipedian in Residence'. OTOH per Andreas Kolbe: "Kevin Gorman's other claim to fame ... was his involvement in the Wiki-PR investigation, where he did excellent work, and helped journalists draw the public's attention to the scandal – with the result that the WMF board are now for the first time opening that can of worms. That's more than most Wikipedians have done for Wikipedia criticism." And what about this.
Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) (page)	I have just remembered his role in covering up the Anvil email in the elections 5 years ago (Nov 30 2010), deceiving the community and blackmailing a candidate into standing down. Definitely oppose.
Kudpung (talk · contribs) (page)	Trusts anyone who is an administrator. Never saw the problem in the Wifione case until the bitter end. Not to forget "Please repair the damage you have done to the format of this page, and remove your arrogant demand from the answer box." [1]. Nor "I have had dozens of private conversations with younger editors, on-Wiki, by email, per Skype, and at meet ups and several Wikimanias, does that make me a predator" [2] Again: "I don't know what or where Wikipediocracy and reddit are and although I have a pretty good idea, I expect I'll be obliged to find out if ever I miraculously get elected, and they are not the only places people hide behind the anonymity afforded by Internet traditions to say terrible things about other people with impunity" [3]
LFaraone (talk · contribs) (page)	Gnomer, barely into his twenties, doing almost no content work except spelling corrections and other trivial items, while chasing increasing amounts of power.
MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) (page)	3329 edits, hangs about arbcom a lot.
Mahensingha (talk · contribs) (page)	Teacher, content creator, copyeditor. Relatively inexperienced, but does that matter?
NE Ent (talk · contribs) (page)	Support as my 9th candidate.
Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) (page)	Content contributor in important area, enough said. On the bannedmeansbanned template: "Didn't we discuss this one already, or was that a different gravedancing template? Delete it with fire. I just don't understand the underlying model of human psychology here. "Someone is behaving badly despite efforts to make them stop. What should we do about that? I know! Make a template telling them we really mean it!"" 21:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) (page)	Intensive 'gnomer'. Uses several custom bots to perform trivial edits, reformats, and other functions. The father of SmackBot, an infamous software bot used to "grind" the database in various trivial ways, performing a list of minor reformattings. There have been so many complaints about his bot editing, there is a special section of AN/I dedicated to him--with three archives.
~~Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) (page)~~	Withdrawn
~~Samtar (talk · contribs) (page)~~	Withdrawn
Thryduulf (talk · contribs) (page)	See this thread. See also desysop of Yngvadottir. This was wholly unimpressive. Failed to spot the problem with the Indian Faker [4], because the evidence came from a certain 'external site'.
~~Timtrent (talk · contribs) (page)~~	Timtrent wrote: [...] I do not find lawful pictures of naked bodies, whatever things those bodies are doing, to need any form of limitation. Titilation [sic] is in the eye of the beholder, after all, and titilation from lawful pictures is lawful. [...] Is titillation is the purpose of an encyclopedia? I view the responsibility for what a child may see online as being wholly with the parent (or those acting in loco parentis) and accept no arguments in that direction (and I do not recall that you presented such arguments) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC) As I have pointed out before, parents safeguard children by means of the 'safe site' feature on the PC. Does this mean that parents must exclude their children from Wikipedia in this way? Withdrawn
Wildthing61476 (talk · contribs) (page)	Has been on the project for a long time, gave reasonable answers to the questions and no drama that I could see. I hate all this " does not have enough experience" stuff. It's a wikipedia committee for goodness' sake. Support 'new blood'.

Other guides[edit]