User talk:Rschen7754/ACE2013

"Platform of civility"?
Hi. Could you be a bit clearer as to what you are referring to when you say I am "running on a platform of civility" this time? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you mention both the NPOV and civility policies in your statement as follows: "I am a strong believer in Wikipedia's core policies — especially the NPOV and civility policies." --Rschen7754 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Last year, when this issue came up, it seemed to me that people quickly got hyperfocussed on a superficial definition of civility that didn't care much about anything beyond not saying dirty words. A wider perspective on the problem has been acknowledged (see the Civil POV pushing essay), but it has proved to be very difficult to find a good solution.  I would certainly support some harder work on this issue, though I'm not sure if ArbCom can or should do it all.  By citing the Civil POV Pushing essay, BTW, I am not proposing to give blind, blanket support to everything it says or recommends.


 * I talked about what I think civility really means at some length during last year's election discussions (read my ACE 2012 question page), but some of the 2012 guide writers didn't seem to take note of my later comments for whatever reason. If people decide to ask me new (or repeated old) questions about civility this time around, I will of course do my best to offer my current thoughts.   —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I do think you're more reasonable than some of the candidates who ran last year on the civility platform. And overall, I've resolved to be at least somewhat critical of all the candidates this year. But it's more the mentality of a lot of other candidates who have run on that same platform, or the opposing platform, that I am concerned about, even if just a little bit. Would it lead me to oppose? Possibly not, depending on who else runs. --Rschen7754 06:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

General question
I'm not sure how many years you've put together your guides, Rschen7754, but I just wondered if you ever supported a candidate who wasn't an Admin. I'm doing a little personal study of the AC and am considering if Admin or clerking experience is generally required (kind of like how most politicians have a law degree). Thanks for any assistance you can provide! Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, although you're welcome to look. The few non-admins that I would trust for ArbCom aren't admins for the same reason that they wouldn't run for ArbCom, due to lack of interest in that sort of thing. --Rschen7754 21:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Besides the concerns of "if he can't handle answering 100 questions, how is he gonna handle ArbCom?"
There's also another way of looking at it. 25 questions have been asked by guide writers. If you look at Floquenbeam's questionnaire, that's 25 to 8 asked by non-guide writers. Essentially, the three of you completely hog the questions pages and, since you pretend to write guides for the wider audience and not responding to your questions will give a candidate bad scores, your super-important guide questions also weigh higher in terms of how your average candidate will prioritize their answers. I personally think it's high time a candidate tells you all that you're being unreasonable.

There's a silver lining, though. This year in particular will help make the case to restore the rules we had a couple of years ago, where any non personalized questions not part of the general set were forbidden and removed by the EC. MLauba (Talk) 10:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this is nothing compared to past years, when the number of questions broke 150. I have the right to my opinion, and you have the right to yours, but this is my guide, so as long as there is nothing in it that violates other policies, my opinion will remain in my guide. --Rschen7754 10:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And besides, there's plenty of "unreasonable" stuff that arbs have to do on a regular basis that's worse than answering 40 questions. --Rschen7754 10:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Experience
I've used this system for a few years now, but with the mass rush of candidates, it's possible that I may make a few mistakes. Please let me know if the numbers don't seem right. --Rschen7754 01:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question deadline
I will be finishing this guide Sunday afternoon before voting begins; any questions missing by the time it begins will be counted as zero. At that time, the rationales for asking each question will be posted. --Rschen7754 04:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All scores are now final. Incomplete questions have now been counted as zero. --Rschen7754 07:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this. As a fellow writer, I can empathize with how much research it took this year! --Elonka 07:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and same to you. I think we're one of the few writers left from 2008... --Rschen7754 07:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)