User:Collect/ACE2014

2014 questions:



Answers to these questions shall form the basis for my recommendations in this election. Collect (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No consideration in this evaluation is given in any way to whether I have had any contact with the candidate, or anything other than what I describe below. Each question has now been asked in one form or another of ArbCom candidates for at least three years, and up to six years or more.

There are seven questions, each of which are valued at 3 points each. Failure to answer gets the traditional "zero point" result, while answers showing a great deal of thought consistent with Wikipedia policies can get up to three points. A perfunctory answer which does not directly contradict Wikipedia policies will get all of one point, etc.

<!-- ''Wikipedia is not a family unit to be held together with every ounce of effort and despite all odds. It is a functioning encyclopedia with a mission to accomplish; people who prove beyond doubt that they stand in the way of that mission cannot expect the patience of every other active editor, or of the committee, to last forever. I think it is important that you try to understand this.'' words of wisdom from a current Arbitrator, indicating his personal opinion.

The rationale for asking the same meaningful and thought-requiring questions of each candidate is simple - to see how their thought processes work in parallel on the same issues. Asking "what will you do?" and "what will you being to the committee?" are the sort of questions one expects to be asked of candidates for Prom King or Queen, but offer essentially little real guidance as to who they are and what they are thinking.

Question 1 seeks to determine how strong-willed a candidate would be if, after voting to accept a case, they then actually find that no sanctions are called for.

Question 2 is aimed at determining whether a person is apt to view "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" solutions as palatable at all.

Question 3 asks just how committed a person would be to following orderly processes set out, or whether the "solution" is the only thing which counts.

Question 4 is a "thought question" as "stare decisis" seems to never be used officially, but "boilerplate" principles and findings then get cut-and-pasted into multiple decisions - which seems a tad self-contradictory.

Question 5 seeks to find out whether the candidate thinks 5P is a "mere essay" or not (it is, in fact, a short statement of correlations of policies). I find those who then aver that IAR is of "equal standing" to BLP and NPOV to be in the off position of thinking that IAR is anything more than "rules which lead to clearly wrong results or preventing the improvement of the project." Violations of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV are "not negotiable" and such violations can not "improve the project." In fact, BLP violations can have real and serious potential for harm to people. We are better off treating an "evil person" with extra care than with having any chance of damaging a "non-evil person." Generally IAR applies to processes where following the set process is the issue - and it does not "trump" other policies.

Question 6 is a very simple question, as the Committee has specified the primary and absolute importance of WP:BLP including sanctions for violations of that policy. Anyone who would back away from that particular part of ArbCom history is to be looked at askance, IMHO.

Question 7 is a "thought question" - it may show whether the candidate believes that factions do or do not exist, and whether opposing factions should be treated similarly, or whether "right" factions should be favoured, etc. It really depends on the direction the candidate runs with the ball. It is the only question asked where depth of reply is more important than any facile answer. -->

Grading: As I use .5 gradations, there is a subjective difference between adjacent grades. That said, I regard a 1.5 as a "Gentleman's C"  with lower grades given only for very perfunctory answers, no answer  (if a candidate does not have an hour now, will they have 10 hours later to work on a case?), or an answer which appears to have no support from the other candidates. Any grade under 14 total is pretty much a "do not recommend",  14 to 17  is a "not opposed" and 17.5 or higher is "recommend". One guide uses a subset of my questions - the far right column is the sum of the values for 4, 5 and 7 as I scored them

List of ArbCom candidates: Q1   Q2    Q3   Q4   Q5   Q6   Q7   total     4, 5  and 7 1 Calidum      3     2     3    2.5  2    1    1    14.5      5.5 2 Courcelles   2.5   2.5   3    2    3    2    2    17.0      7.0 3 DeltaQuad    1     1     2    2    3    1    2    12.0      7.0 4 DGG          1     1     3    2    3    1    1.5  12.5      6.5 5 Dougweller   3     2     2.5  2    2    2    2.5  16.0      6.5 6 Dusti        3     3     3    2    2    2.5  2    17.5      6.0 7 Euryalus     2     2     3    1.5  3    2.5  2.5  16.5      7.0 8 Geni         1     1.5   1    1.5  1    1    1     8.0      3.5 (last second) 9 Guerillero   2     2     1.5  2    2    2    2    13.5      6.0 10 Hahc21       2     2.5   3    -    3    3    2.5  16.0      5.5 11 Isarra       2     1.5   1.5  1.5  1.5  2    1    11.0      4.0 12 Kraxler      2     2     3    2  no other answers  9.0      2.0 (very late) 13 Ks0stm       1.5   3     3    3    2.5  2.5  2    17.5      7.5 14 PhilKnight     no answers at all to anyone         nil      nil 15 Salvio giuliano 1  1.5   3    2    1.5  1.5  1.5  12.0      5.0   (very late) 16 Stanistani   2     2     3    1.5  2    2    1.5  14.0      5.0 17 Technical 13 2     2     2.5  2    3    2    2    15.5      7.0 18 Thryduulf    1     0     1.5  1.5  1    1    1.5   7.5      4.0 (the only candidate supporting "no fault" sanctions as a "Gordian Knot" solution) 19 Wbm1058      3     3     3    3    3    3    2    20.0      8.0 20 Yunshui      3     1     3    1.5  3    3    2.5  17.0      7.0

Recommended
 * Dusti
 * Ks0stm
 * Wbm1058

Honourable Mention
 * Courcelles
 * Yunshui

Special Award:
 * PhilKnight (since withdrawn as a candidate) for showing no inclination to answer any questions at all from anyone

Cheers to all, even those who did not have the time to answer the short set of questions. Collect (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, The only criteria used here are the answers to a short list of questions, designed to find out how people view the position at hand, and what they find to be most important to the functioning of the committee. I did not count edits, look at AfD votes or anything else, but have found over the past half century or so that comparing answers to the same questions gives substantial insight into who the person is, and that is enough for me. Collect (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone believe that a candidate for ArbCom could ever post with a straight face:
 * I'd like to make the following affirmation: "Charles Rangel[6] succeeded Michael Grimm[7] as a man who was elected in a district with the official number 13." I'm certain to get an A for that,

His answer score here was already yucky, but statements like this make me think we should have some literacy requirements as well. Collect (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)