User:Rschen7754/ACE2013

__NOINDEX__

Previous guides: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

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

Background
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 6 FAs and 17 GAs. I have been following virtually all the 2012/2013 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, Civility enforcement, Kiefer Wolfowitz and Ironholds, and Infoboxes come to mind; I have also filed a few declined requests (another Racepacket one, one on the Featured articles process, and one on Youreallycan). I am an Arbitration Clerk trainee, and a full SPI clerk. I am also an admin on Wikidata, the English Wikivoyage, and Meta, and am a global sysop.

A bit about what I want in an arbitrator:
 * Is on the side of harsher sanctions, but only when a harsher stance is deserved (not just handing out sanctions left and right). Sometimes, problematic editors (POV pushers, or people who try to bypass the consensus process and force their will on the article) have the ability to completely wreck a good content contributor's experience, and cause them to leave entirely; yet, there isn't enough consensus to deal with the matter. An arb really should "get" this, as this is one of the functions of the Committee.
 * Believes in the balance between privacy and transparency.
 * Knows that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and how that all works. We've had too many arbitrators/functionaries/admins recently who are clueless when it comes to content. Extensive content contributions are highly desired, but we can't have 15 content writers. I do expect that they at least know about content, even
 * Has a good record both here and on other Wikimedia sites. Arbitrators aren't expected to have the skills that say, MedCom would, but should maintain a standard of decorum that is appropriate for a functionary, both here and globally. For my essay on global behavior, see User:Rschen7754/You represent the English Wikipedia!.
 * Has a moderate stance on civility. I tend to lean towards a harsher stance on that, but after some events of last year, I am a bit wary of those who take a very hard line on that.

How this guide works
I read the answers to the questions that I've asked and score them as to how reasonable the answers are. 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.

The numerical system nowadays is used more as a sanity check/formality; I generally focus more on my comments nowadays. Besides, it's been a tradition since 2008...

Questions
This year I am not going to post the exact rubric that I use for scoring the questions; it does make things too easy to game (even though I change at least half of the questions each year). However, I will eventually post some comments about each question, so that the voters can understand where the question comes from.



Experience
FA/GA: 4 points
 * +2 points: Any featured or good content.
 * +2 points: 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?
 * 1 point for each full year (counting from November 1), capping at 3.

Edit count: 4 points The edit count divided by 20,000, capping at 4 points (80,000 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?
 * +4 points: ArbCom
 * +2 points: Bureaucrat, CheckUser, oversighter, steward, AUSC, ArbCom clerk, ArbCom-appointed groups, MedCom, Ombudsman Commission, Language Committee, OTRS admin, WMF staff/contracting
 * +1 point: OTRS, SPI clerk, CCI clerk, featured content process delegate, MILHIST coordinator, lawyer, BAG, CU/OS on other wiki, ArbCom on other wiki, global sysop
 * Maximum is 4 points. Former positions count as long as duration was substantial and the reason for resigning was uncontroversial.
 * 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, AUSC and functionary (CU/OS)

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

Record: 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: 25 * 1.2 = 30%

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.

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

The actual scores
So far, the scores are all coming in fairly low, a bit lower than I expected. I'm going to see how things go before making any "official" recommendations though, but my guess is that the scale will be significantly lower than last year.

The general scale I used this year: Above 74% - Support, 62 to 70% - Neutral, Below 62% - Oppose. The average score (of the people who completed the questions as of this writing) was 66.34%.



Guide to guides
It's always good to get other editors' opinions to get a better perspective. But quite a few guides are created to push an agenda. Well, all of them do push an agenda, but some are more extreme than others.

If a guide is not listed here, that doesn't necessarily mean I think it is bad; I am only listing the outstanding ones.

Recommend: Reaper Eternal, Hahc21, Sven Manguard, NuclearWarfare, Heimstern