| Revision as of 04:13, 11 November 2013 editRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →ResultsTag: Visual edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:08, 11 November 2013 edit undoRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits addNext edit → | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ==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. | |||
| '''Recommend:''' Reaper Eternal, Hahc21 | |||
| '''Stay away from:''' Collect (party to the Tea Party Movement case, which greatly affects the guide) | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 09:08, 11 November 2013
 |
These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Previous guides: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
Standard disclaimer: This represents my views and opinions, especially on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages!.
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
A copy of the questions can be found at User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2013.
Scoring
| Experience (30%) |
|---|
|
FA/GA: 4 points
Tenure: 3 points Have you been a Misplaced Pages editor for a decent length of time and made a proportionate amount of edits during that time?
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?
Experience: 4 points Have you participated in a formal committee that will give you experience in ArbCom?
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?
Record: 4 points
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!
| Editor | Thoughts | Questions score /70 | Experience score /30 | Total score | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGK (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
The rumor is that he is running. | ?? | |||
| Richwales (talk · contribs) Statement Questions Discussion |
Ran last year (score 71.60, Neutral). Last year I went neutral because I thought he needed more experience. Now he's a current AUSC member, and a current SPI clerk. Awaiting answers to questions, and waiting to see where the other candidates fall.
Well, the answers to the questions, as well as experience, and my overall impressions are all better than last year, though a few of the answers were a bit lacking. He did alright as a SPI clerk, and offered to continue with parts of the role after he became part of AUSC. I think he nailed part of the WikiProject question, but he missed the other side of the equation. Some of the other answers were really good, notably vested contributors. With that being said, the other thing that gives me pause is his running on a platform of civility. It makes me a bit uncomfortable when people run on a platform of civility, both for, and against - but maybe that's because of past arbitrators who have campaigned on that same platform, and how things turned out there. Even then, this comment is insightful. That being said, we could do a lot worse, and he seems clueful, so this may even turn into a weak support, depending on the other candidates. |
61.82 | 23.61 | 85.43 | Likely neutral to weak support |
The actual scores
Some comments about scoring.
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.
Recommend: Reaper Eternal, Hahc21
Stay away from: Collect (party to the Tea Party Movement case, which greatly affects the guide)
Category: