User:Rschen7754/ACE2010

__NOINDEX__

How the scoring works
I read the general questions and score them as to how well the answer is. To the candidates that do well I give a few extra questions and see how well they do. I also score experience. I give out the final numbers after that. Towards the voting time I give out what my recommendations are (it's relative to the final scores; think of grading on a curve).

Component 1: Skills (20%)
Question 1 (General): 5 points Skill set.
 * +1 point: Each skill sufficiently proven (cap at 5)

Total: 5 points *4 = 20%

Component 2: Stress (10%)
Question 2 (General): 2 points How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
 * 0-2 points: Qualitative, based on the strength of the arguments given.

Total: 2 points * 5 = 10%

Component 3: Philosophy (35%)
Question 1 (mine): 4 points What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * +2 points: Support COMPETENCE
 * +1 point: Too much grace for COMPETENCE
 * +2 points: Support NOTTHERAPY
 * +1 point: Too much grace for NOTTHERAPY

Question 2 (mine): 4 points Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?
 * +4 points: Depends on situation, but not automatically. Local consensus should not be ignored.
 * +3 points: Local consensus always overrides.
 * +2 points: One but not the other
 * +1 point: Almost always
 * +0 points: Yes.

Question 3 (General): 2 points Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases. a) Private correspondence b) Responsibility
 * +1 point each: Support, and sufficient rationale behind it.

Question 4 (General): 4 points Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
 * +2 points: Support bans
 * +1 point: Good answer for factors
 * +1 point: Good answer for desysopping (compromised, not answering Arbcom, wheel warring, socking, etc. – emergency sanctions)

Question 7 (General): 10 points Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.


 * 2 points per case. These were the general feelings I got from each case.


 * Tothwolf - good, except for maybe length of time.
 * MZMcBride 2 - good, though it was sort of moot.
 * Chabad movement - it said nothing.
 * ChildofMidnight - good
 * Asgardian - good
 * Alastair Haines 2 - good
 * Gibraltar - could go either way.
 * Russavia-Biophys - good
 * Transcendental Meditation movement - slow, ok, 1 restriction
 * Race and intelligence - either way
 * Climate change - either way
 * Stevertigo 2 - good
 * Speed of light - not good
 * Ottava Rima - good

Total: 24 points *1.458 = 35%

Component 4: Feedback (5%)
Question 8 (General): 1 point What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
 * 1 point: Answering the question, and providing a real answer illustrating changes that you would bring about, rather than a "It's unfair for me to say".

1 point * 5 = 5%

Component 5: Experience (30%)
Tenure: 2 points Have you been a Wikipedia editor for a decent length of time and made a proportionate amount of edits during that time?
 * 2 points: Over 3 years of active editing.
 * 1 point: 2-3 years of active editing.
 * 0 points: Under 2 years of active editing.

Administrator: 3 points Are you an administrator? How long have you been an administrator?
 * 3 points: Yes, over 2 years
 * 2 points: Yes
 * 0 points: No

Experience: 2 points Have you participated in a formal committee that will give you experience in ArbCom? Accepted committees include bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, steward, OTRS, Arbitration Committee (arbitrator or clerk), Audit Subcommittee, ArbCom-appointed cabals, Mediation Committee, and WP:MILHIST coordinator. Some credit was given for real life experience (lawyer, some sysadmin positions).
 * 2 points: Yes
 * 1 point: Real life experience
 * 0 points: No

Statement: 2 points Was your statement well thought out? Was it reasonable and not a "let's go sack ArbCom" statement?
 * +1 point: For the two questions

Civility: 2 points
 * 0 points: Visible problems such as RFC or ArbCom, sock issues
 * 1 point: (default)
 * 2 points: Thank you (strictly enforced this year). Does not blow up with anger in the responses.

Total: 11 points * 2.72 = 30%

Total scores
Final scale: > 70% is support, < 60 is oppose, 60-70 is left to my discretion.