User:Rschen7754/ACE2012

__NOINDEX__

Previous guides: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

Standard disclaimer: This represents my views and opinions, especially on Wikipedia philosophy. I encourage you to do your own research.

A bit about myself: editor since 2005, admin since 2005, OTRS agent since 2012. I am a contributor to the U.S. Roads project and have two FAs and 16 GAs. I have been following virtually all the 2012 ArbCom cases, and have been an official party to three: Highways (2006), Highways 2 (2008), and Racepacket (2011). I have also commented on quite a few others: Ottava Rima restrictions and Civility enforcement come to mind; I have also filed a few declined requests (another Racepacket one, one on the Featured articles process, and one on Youreallycan).

In regards to User talk:Jclemens, as a guide writer I publicly state that at no time did I receive any confidential material, directly or indirectly, from Elen of the Roads. --Rschen7754 08:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

How this guide works
I read the answers to the questions that I've asked and score them as to how the candidate's views align with mine. 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). Note that I reserve the right to deviate from the score this year.

Questions
A copy of the questions can be found at User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2012.

Scoring
Question 1: 3 points What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
 * 3 points: Saying that the delay was bad and unacceptable.
 * 2 points: Saying that the delay was bad but justified.
 * 0 points: What was the problem with the delay?
 * -1 points: I think that this is why it was so long. (and gives a wrong reason)

What is the role of a WikiProject?

This question got really screwed up in my rephrasing this year. It was only worth 10% though so I didn't toss it entirely, and in some cases it worked.
 * 2 points: WikiProjects can set standards.
 * 1 points: saying anything that is true about WikiProjects
 * 0 points: anything including saying WikiProjects cannot set standards

Elen's response was in between 1 and 2.

Question 3: Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * 3 points: shouldn't give vested contributors a break.
 * 2 points: should give vested contributors a break.
 * 1 point: something in between
 * 0 points: there is no problem

Question 4: Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?

The answer I was looking for was along the lines of "if the community has lost my trust." Anything less than that got 2 points or in one case, 1 point. Inactivity / IRL business is another important reason but that wasn't what I wanted to know.

Note: Question 5 was a great question last year, but the wording was flawed and didn't quite yield the information I wanted. I rephrased it this year, but I reserve the right to play with the rubric if I don't like how it turned out again. I'm not exactly sure where I want to go with question 6, and I also reserve the right to tweak the rubric until the final scores are done.

Question 5: 10 points Part A: 6 points Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance?
 * +6 points: Sometimes, but not always, with thorough explanation.
 * +4 points: Yes, because we can always choose how we respond.
 * +3/2/1 points: (somewhere in between)
 * +0 points: Always, or never.

Part B: 4 points Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
 * +4 points: Both, under the right circumstances.
 * +2 points: (somewhere in between)
 * +0 points: Always, or never.

Question 6: 5 points ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? (cap of 3 points) b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor? (cap of 2 points) Note: reserve the right to deviate from this, as I’m not exactly sure what I’m looking for here yet.
 * +2 points: well thought out answer for determining abuse
 * +1 point: Yes, there is a gray area.
 * +1 point: original action can be reversed without being wrong
 * +1 point per scenario (may adjust weight): wheel warring, socking, compromised account, outing/harassment, insanity, deceiving the community, lost trust of community, rogue admin, conduct unbecoming of an admin (be careful here!) personal attacks, BLP, poor judgment, failure to explain, incivility, battlefield mentality
 * -1 point: per incorrect scenario, or something totally wrong
 * +1 point: high standards for such an action by ArbCom, almost never

Question 7: 5 points What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence? Part A: Part B:
 * +2 points: ArbCom has no jurisdiction over what happens on other sites.
 * +1 point: In case of harassment, those actions can affect user on enwp.
 * 2 points: In specific cases, such as in terms of outing or harassment.
 * 1 point: Same as above but bad reasoning or examples
 * 0 points: Always or never.

8. What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
 * +5 points: Anything that makes sense and shows understanding of the issue. I took off points for anything grossly incorrect or outrageous.

9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * +5 points: Yes.

Total: 10 * 1 = 10%

FA/GA: 2 points
 * +1 point: Any featured or good content.
 * +1 point: Has a FA.

Tenure: 3 points Have you been a Wikipedia editor for a decent length of time and made a proportionate amount of edits during that time?
 * 3 points: Over 3 years of active editing.
 * 2 points: Over 2 years of active editing.
 * 1 point: Over 1 year of active editing.
 * 0 points: Under 1 year of active editing.

Edit count: 5 points The edit count divided by 20,000, capping at 5 points (100,000 edits).

Administrator: 4 points Are you an administrator? How long have you been an administrator?
 * 4 points: Yes, over 2 years
 * 3 points: Yes, over 1 year
 * 2 points: Yes
 * 0 points: No
 * Former admins: under a cloud, 0 points; voluntary/inactive, calculate as above but -1 point.
 * ArbCom desysopped and resysopped admins: calculate second tenure only.
 * Resysopped admins: factor in gaps of a year or more.

Experience: 4 points Have you participated in a formal committee that will give you experience in ArbCom?
 * +2 points: Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, steward, AUSC, ArbCom, ArbCom clerk, ArbCom-appointed cabals, MedCom
 * +1 point: OTRS, SPI clerk, CCI clerk, featured content process delegate, MILHIST coordinator, lawyer, BAG
 * Maximum is 4 points. Former positions count as long as duration was substantial and candidate did not resign under a cloud and completed the duration of any term they were elected to.
 * The following combinations will not be double-counted, and will be awarded the larger of the two point values for the position: CU and SPI clerk

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

Civility: 4 points
 * 0 points: Visible problems such as RFC or ArbCom, bad block log, sock issues
 * 1 point: Obvious problems with demeanor (contribution check or from anything I can recall)
 * 3 points: (default)
 * 4 points: Thank you (strictly enforced this year). Does not blow up with anger in the responses.

Total: 24 * 1.67 = 40%

Results
I will list editors in alphabetical order. Any initial comments are simply that; if you wow me with your answers to the questions, that can make a huge difference. All arbitrators with expiring terms are listed below, marked with *.

Recommendations are solely for suitability in a possible role as an arbitrator. Please don't take this personally!

The actual scores
I've got a feeling as to what the final scale will be, but I'm still waiting a few days to finalize. I've started doing "Strong support" and "Strong oppose" this year; the "strong" designation is at my discretion only and is not directly related to the numbers, though the numbers strongly relate to my gut feeling.

The average was 70.06%. Over 74% was a Support, over 69.5% was a Neutral, and below was an Oppose.

In past years I took into account normalizing the results so that the average would be around 90%, and then supported everyone over 90%. It's still too early to be sure, but so far that's not producing a useful metric this year. I have candidates with well over 100% if you do this, and I have others sitting in the 70s, with nobody in the 80s. So in other words, candidates are either doing really well or really poorly; there's no in between. With such a bizarre distribution, I don't want to do it this way this year.

I now have more than 8 supports, but there's a lot of good candidates this year...



Guide on guides
/GTG