User:Rschen7754/ACEScores2008

__NOINDEX__

I will be posting my opinion based on the questions I asked by the time voting begins. Candidates who answer the questions after I post the scores will get 80% credit from Dec. 1-3, 50% credit from Dec. 4-5, 30% credit from Dec. 6-7, and NO credit thereafter since the "correct" answers will already be accessible, and because timeliness is extremely important for an arbitrator, and because I don't have the time to sit and keep checking pages during finals week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How I determined support or oppose
I weighed the answers to the questions as well as some other characteristics to get a percentage. As of 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC), the lowest score from a person who answered all of the questions was a 12.00%, and the highest score was an 88.00%. As of 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC), the curve will be as follows: 76% will be the new 100%, and the percentages will then be recalculated. Those with above a 90% (an A) will be determined as support. So far this gives me 7 Supports, so I like this method of calculation.

Component 1: Arbcom delay (9%)
Question 1: 3 points What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * 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)

Total: 3 points * 3 = 9 %

Component 2: Views on USRD structure (45%)
Question 2a: 2 points What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
 * 2 points: Set and enforce standards, collaboration of editors for a topic
 * 1 point: Collaboration of editors for a topic, cannot set or enforce standards
 * -2 points: Ad hominem attack

Question 2b: 2 points Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 2 points: Yes.
 * 1.5 points: Yes, but not exclude others from their discussion.
 * 1 point: Indirectly through a consensus of editors.
 * 0 points: No way.
 * -2 points: WikiProjects are the bane of all evil.

Question 3: 3 points Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * 3 points: Yes.
 * 2.5 points: Yes, but don't just point at the standards.
 * 1 point: No, because... (related to answer to 1 point answer to #2b)
 * 0 points: No way.
 * -1 point: Incorrectly relating this to the second Highways arbitration case.
 * -2 points: Using prejudicial language in saying no.

Question 4a: 1 point Does canvassing include project newsletters or other forms of communication?
 * 1 point: No.
 * 1 point: "No, as long as it is worded neutrally" if you explained it well.
 * 0.5 point: "No, as long as it is worded neutrally" if you were too vague.
 * 0 points: Yes, in every case.
 * -1 point: Incorrectly thinking that canvassing can only be through newsletters OR IRC.

Question 4b: 1 point Does canvassing include IRC?
 * 1 point: No.
 * 1 point: "No, as long as it is worded neutrally" if you explained it well.
 * 0.5 point: "No, as long as it is worded neutrally" if you were too vague.
 * 0 points: Yes, in every case.

Total: 9 points * 5 = 45%

Component 3: Views on problematic users USRD has faced (26%)
Question 5a: 2 points In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed).
 * This question is based off an actual editor.


 * 2 points: It's bad.
 * 1 points: It's bad but assume (too much) good faith.
 * 0 points: It's good.

Question 5b: 3 points Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
 * +1 point: Block
 * +1 point: Protect
 * +1 point: Rollback
 * -1 point: If you were way too hesitant in applying the above.

Question 6: 2 points An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * This question is based off an actual editor.


 * 2 points: Block after other avenues have been exhausted.
 * 1.5 points: Block because they are evading policies.
 * 1 point: Block after a lot of superfluous actions.
 * 0 points: Blocking is not an option.

Question 7: 2 points An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * This question is based off an actual editor.


 * 2 points: Block after other avenues have been exhausted.
 * 1 point: Block after a lot of superfluous actions.
 * 0 points: Blocking is not an option.

Question 8a: 1 point What justifies a community ban?
 * 1 point: I was pretty generous on this one; anything reasonable got a point.
 * 0 points: Omitting the answer or giving something totally off the wall.

Question 8b: 3 points Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * +1 point: Editor #5
 * +1 point: Editor #6
 * +1 point: Editor #7

Total: 13 points * 2 = 26%

Component 4: Problems with Wikipedia (5%)
Question 9: 1 point (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?


 * 1 point: Just answering the question. I even took some very poorly written answers. If you didn't answer the question you missed out on an easy 5%. Note that next year I will be taking off points for crummy answers that are not well thought out.

Total: 1 point * 5 = 5%

Component 5: Experience (15%)
Tenure: 1 point Have you been a Wikipedia editor for a decent length of time and made a proportionate amount of edits during that time?

Administrator: 1 point Are you an administrator?

Experience: 1 point Have you participated in a formal committee that will give you experience in ArbCom? Accepted committees include bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, OTRS, Arbitration Committee(arbitrator or clerk), Mediation Committee, and WP:MILHIST coordinator. Some credit was given for real life experience (lawyer).

Statement: 1 point Was your statement well thought out? Was it reasonable and not a "let's go sack ArbCom" statement?

Civility: 1 point I was generous and gave points unless you were extremely rude. I will not be so next year - a "Thank you" is expected. As an arbitrator, you need to be civil and polite.

Total: 5 points * 3 = 15%

The actual scores
INC= incomplete and counted as zero. Negative scores were used for extremely rude answers or for answers where it was evident that you did not understand the question at all.

If you have any questions about scores, please let me know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)