This is a single-issue guide on the topic of admin accountability, intended for voters who generally agree with my view that we need more accountability for admins and functionaries, and more transparency about that accountability. I have asked every ArbCom candidate this question:
Do you think ArbCom should be more transparent about the outcomes of private inquiries, especially regarding admins and functionaries? This question is motivated by the admin meatpuppetry situation in September, but it's up to you whether to discuss that situation in particular.
I have also considered responses to other questions about admin accountability.
I am making this guide because ArbCom, sadly, remains the only body with the power to desysop. Arbitrators' willingness to hold admins accountable, and philosophy for doing so, is one of the most important considerations in fitness to serve. I am not comparing candidates answers to a single "right" answer, but more interested in the philosophy of admin accountability that their answers show. That said, this assessment is not written from a neutral point of view. My analysis is based on my experience with ArbCom, as someone who has interacted with the Commitee extensively since becoming an admin in May 2022, and who has been a party to two cases this year. There are no right answers, but there are (in my view) wrong answers, and I have called them out as such.
Because this is a single-issue guide, I consider a positive finding here a mostly-necessary but not sufficient criterion for supporting. That is to say, if I find someone's commitment to admin accountability insufficient, I will (quite likely) either vote neutral or oppose, but if I find it satisfactory, that does not necessarily mean I will support.