User:Rschen7754/ACEScores2009

__NOINDEX__

I will be posting my opinion based on the questions I asked by the time voting begins. Please be prompt in answering questions; after the curve is set it will not be changed.

How I determined support or oppose
Basically I score on a curve. In 2007, one needed a 60% score to get a Support, and in 2008, one needed a 68.4% score to get a Support.

Curve for 2009: >88% is Support, < 65% is oppose, and in between is Neutral. I did push up two Neutrals who did not answer question 10a into the Support category, however.

Component 1: Arbcom delay (10%)
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 * 3.333 = 10 %

Component 2: Views on WikiProject structure (10%)
Question 2: 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.

Total: 2 points * 5 = 10%

Component 3: Problem editors (25%)
Question 3: 3 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.
 * 3 points: Block after other avenues have been exhausted.
 * 2 points: Block because they are evading policies.
 * 1 point: Block after a lot of superfluous actions.
 * 0 points: Blocking is not an option.

Question 4: 3 points There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?
 * This question is based off an actual editor.
 * 3 points: Block after other avenues have been exhausted.
 * 2 points: Block after a lot of delay, or some sort of restriction.
 * 1 point: It’s wrong, but what can we do about it?
 * 0 points: What’s the problem?

Question 5: 3 points An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * This question is based off an actual editor.
 * 3 points: Block after other avenues have been exhausted.
 * 2 points: Block after a lot of superfluous actions.
 * 0 points: Blocking is not an option.

Question 6: 3 points Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * +1 point: Editor #3
 * +1 point: Editor #4
 * +1 point: Editor #5

Total: 15 points * 1.667 = 25%

Component 4: Wikipedia philosophy (30%)
Question 7: 3 points Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * +1 point: Fourth revert, not rvv, not BLP, not self-revert, not in userspace, includes all reverts
 * +2 points: Block level appropriate (even when two editors are warring against each other)
 * +1 point: Would not block in all circumstances
 * +0 points: Would rarely block

Question 8: 3 points When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * 3 points: Is it objectionable to a sizeable minority?
 * 1-2 points: Some sort of other reasoning
 * 0 points: Straight majority, or something totally wrong

Question 9: 3 points A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * 3 points: Almost always
 * 2 points:
 * 1 point:
 * 0 points: Never

Question 10: 7 points During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Loshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee.

This required a few sentences, not necessarily espousing a point of view, explaining what happened. This did not require the disclosure of any private information. You could have paraphrased the Signpost and gotten full points. (Note that linking to it was not good enough; the point of the question is to make sure you understand what happened, and linking didn't do that). Some editors did not answer this question, and I decided to go ahead and move a few editors who did not answer the question to Support if they did well on the questions otherwise.

Casliber: Knew that Law=The undertow (an ArbCom-banned user who became an admin under the second account) for several months, asked him to come clean. Started a poll. Realized his credibility was gone, so he resigned.

FT2: Edits to Zoophilia article that got oversighted around the time of his ArbCom election, was made aware of it at a later date, but was not forthcoming with people at all. Pressured to step down, eventually did in a letter to Jimbo, with strange wording indicating that he could be back. However, ArbCom disagreed. They had been aware of the situation and had told him that his position was “untenable”.

Kirill Lokshin: Announced Advisory Committee on Public Development. Faced pressure, decided to resign. Accused of COI since he was a member of the ACPD (though he did not vote for himself). This was accused of being governance as well. "In any case, I take full responsibility for the errors in judgment made in convening the ACPD, and have tendered my resignation from the Arbitration Committee. I apologize to the community for the unfortunate situation that has resulted from my actions. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)"

Sam Blacketer: Some months ago I decided to resign from the committee and return to article editing, notifying the committee privately on 20 February. That resignation now takes effect. Before joining the committee I had used the account Fys for editing which should have been disclosed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"It recently came to the attention of the Arbitration Committee that arbitrator Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) has previously edited under the account name Dbiv (talk · contribs) a/k/a Fys (talk · contribs), a former administrator who was desysopped in a Committee decision in 2006. This fact was not known to any of the sitting arbitrators – nor to the best of the committee's knowledge any previous arbitrator – until the past 24-48 hours.

The Committee was in the process of addressing this situation, of which its members had just learned, when Sam Blacketer submitted his resignation as an arbitrator, effective immediately. Under the circumstances, the resignation was accepted."

Total: 16 points * 1.875 = 30%

About the 11th question...
Question 11: 0 points Deleted due to privacy concerns. I believe research skills are important, but I will start evaluating that next year. (I thought of an idea to resolve the issues, but this was after I had already given out the questions and had people start answering them.)

Component 5: Are there problems with Wikipedia? (5%)
Question 12: 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.

Total: 1 point * 5 = 5%

Component 6: Experience (25%)
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, over 1 year
 * 1 point: 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).
 * 2 points: Yes
 * 1 point: Law 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
 * +1 point: Never had any visible problems such as RFC or ArbCom, no sock issues
 * +1 point: Thank you (strictly enforced this year). Does not blow up with anger in the responses.

Total: 11 points * 2.272 = 25%

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.

* = did not answer question 10a; if they had, they would have received a support. I didn't feel it was fair to take off that many points for a legitimate concern, so I moved these two editors to Support.

If you have any questions about scores, please let me know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)